Committee for PurchaseCommittee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely DisabledRULESSubstitution of Term in a Definition:Addition and Adoption of Use of Specific Interchangeable or Synonymous Terms,58499-585002012-23330NOTICESProposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List,58528-585292012-23329CorporationCorporation for National and Community ServiceNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals,585292012-23279Defense DepartmentDefense DepartmentSee

We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the Asian longhorned beetle regulations by adding portions of Worcester County, MA, and Clermont County, OH, to the list of quarantined areas and by removing a portion of Suffolk County, NY, from the list of quarantined areas. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the artificial spread of Asian longhorned beetle to noninfested areas of the United States and to relieve restrictions on certain areas that were no longer necessary.

DATES:

Effective on September 21, 2012, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 77 FR 31720-31722 on May 30, 2012.

In an interim rule1effective and published on May 30, 2012, in theFederal Register(77 FR 31720-31722, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0003), we amended the Asian longhorned beetle regulations in 7 CFR part 301 by adding portions of Worcester County, MA, and Clermont County, OH, to the list of quarantined areas in § 301.51-3(c). In addition, the interim rule removed the villages of Bayshore, East Islip, and Islip Terrace in the Town of Islip, Suffolk County, NY, from the list of quarantined areas in § 301.51-3(c) based on our determination that those areas meet our criteria for release from regulation. That action relieved restrictions that were no longer necessary on the interstate movement of regulated articles from that area.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before July 30, 2012. We received no comments by that date. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICESAccordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that was published at 77 FR 31720-31722 on May 30, 2012.Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of September 2012.Kevin Shea,Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.[FR Doc. 2012-23353 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410-34-PDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service7 CFR Part 301[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0004]RIN 0579-AD58Plum Pox CompensationAGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Affirmation of interim rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the plum pox regulations to provide for the payment of compensation to eligible owners of non-fruit-bearing ornamental tree nurseries and to increase the amount of compensation that may be paid to eligible owners of commercial stone fruit orchards and fruit tree nurseries whose trees are required to be destroyed in order to prevent the spread of plum pox. The interim rule also provided updated instructions for the submission of claims for compensation. These changes were necessary to provide adequate compensation to persons who are economically affected by the plum pox quarantine and the associated State and Federal eradication efforts.

DATES:

Effective on September 21, 2012, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 77 FR 5381-5385 on February 3, 2012.

The regulations in Subpart—Plum Pox (7 CFR 301.74 through 301.74-5), referred to below as the regulations, quarantine areas of the United States where plum pox has been detected and restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles (e.g., trees, seedlings, root stock, budwood, branches, twigs, and leaves of susceptiblePrunusspp.) from quarantined areas to prevent the spread of plum pox virus (PPV) into uninfected areas of the United States.

In addition to the quarantine and interstate movement restrictions in the regulations, § 310.74-5 also provides forthe payment of compensation to eligible owners of commercial stone fruit orchards, including direct marketers, and fruit tree nurseries. In an interim rule1effective and published in theFederal Registeron February 3, 2012 (77 FR 5381-5385, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0004), we amended the plum pox regulations to provide for the payment of compensation to eligible owners of non-fruit-bearing ornamental tree nurseries and to increase the amount of compensation that may be paid to eligible owners of commercial stone fruit orchards and fruit tree nurseries whose trees are required to be destroyed in order to prevent the spread of plum pox. We also provided updated instructions for the submission of claims for compensation.

1To view the interim rule and the comments we received, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0004.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 3, 2012. We received three comments by that date. The comments were from a State agricultural agency, a fruit grower, and an organization of State plant regulatory agencies. Two commenters fully supported the action, with one of these commenters encouraging the expanded use of compensation for producers who sustain losses due to quarantine plant pests and regulatory actions associated with these pests.

The third commenter said that the interim rule makes reference to “commercial stone fruit orchards and fruit tree nurseries” without defining fruit tree nursery. The commenter also expressed concern that his fruit tree nursery does not qualify for compensation.

In § 301.74-5, paragraph (a)(2) describes the eligibility criteria for compensation for owners of fruit tree nurseries. Those eligibility criteria and the considerations in paragraph (b) that determine payment amounts specify that the plants affected by an emergency action notification are plants that have been produced for commercial sale, which is not the case in the situation described by the commenter.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, this action has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICESAccordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that was published at 77 FR 5381-5385 on February 3, 2012.Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of September 2012.Kevin Shea,Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.[FR Doc. 2012-23356 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410-34-PDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service7 CFR Part 319[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0100]RIN 0579-AD35Irradiation Treatment; Location of Facilities in the Southern United States; Technical AmendmentAGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

In a final rule that was published in theFederal Registeron July 20, 2012, and effective on August 20, 2012, we amended the phytosanitary treatment regulations to, among other things, allow for irradiation treatment of mangoes from India upon arrival in the mainland United States rather than just at the point of origin. In the final rule, we neglected to amend the inspection requirements to address shipments that are treated upon arrival in the United States and not at the point of origin. This document corrects that error.

The phytosanitary treatment regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 (referred to below as the regulations) set out the general requirements for performing treatments and certifying or approving treatment facilities for fruits, vegetables, and other articles to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests or noxious weeds into or through the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture administers these regulations.

In a final rule1published in theFederal Registeron July 20, 2012 (77 FR 4261-4265, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0100), with an effective date of August 20, 2012, we amended the regulations in § 319.56-46 to allow for irradiation treatment of mangoes from India upon arrival in the mainland United States rather than just at the point of origin.

1To view the final rule and related documents, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0100.

Paragraph (c) of § 319.56-46 indicates that each consignment of mangoes must be inspected jointly by APHIS and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of India as part of the required preclearance inspection activities. Paragraph (e) of § 319.56-46 also indicates that joint inspection by APHIS and the NPPO of India is required. While joint inspection and preclearance are practical when irradiation treatment is applied in the country of origin, it is more useful and cost effective for the NPPO of India to inspect the fruit in India and for APHIS to inspect the fruit upon arrival in the United States when irradiation treatment is applied in the United States. This also ensures compliance with the standard2of the International Plant Protection Convention, of which the United States is a contracting party, of applying the least restrictive measures resulting in the minimal impact to trade while effectively managing plant pest risks. We are therefore removing the words “jointly” and “preclearance” from § 319.56-46(c) and the word “jointly” from § 319.56-46(e) to allow inspections to occur separately in India and the United States when appropriate.

2International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) Number 1. To view this and other ISPMS on the Internet, go tohttp://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jspand click on the “Adopted Standards” link under the “Core Activities” heading.

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for General Electric Company GEnx-1B54, GEnx-1B58, GEnx-1B64, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B70, GEnx-1B54/P1, GEnx-1B58/P1, GEnx-1B64/P1, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/72/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, GEnx-1B75/P1, GEnx-2B67, and GEnx-2B67B turbofan engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections (UI) of certain part number (P/N) fan mid shafts (FMS) for cracks. This AD was prompted by a report of an FMS failure and a report of a crack found in another FMS. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the FMS resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 21, 2012.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 21, 2012.

We must receive comments on this AD by October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: (513) 552-3272; email:geae.aoc@ge.com.You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

On July 28, 2012, we received a report of a GEnx-1B engine failure installed on a Boeing 787 (B787) airplane. Boeing was conducting routine ground testing of the B787, before aircraft delivery. During a taxi test, one engine's FMS fractured just aft of the coupling nut. The low-pressure turbine (LPT) rotor shifted axially backwards, resulting in LPT blade and vane clashing. The LPT case contained the failure and debris was released out the tailpipe. There was no engine overspeed as the LPT rotor remained coupled to the fan rotor at the FMS spline. On August 14, 2012, we received a second report concerning the GEnx engine, this time about an FMS, installed in a GEnx-1B engine, that was found cracked during an on-wing UI. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the FMS resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.”

Differences Between the AD and the Service Information

The SBs require an initial FMS inspection within 30 days of the SB date. This AD requires an initial FMS inspection before further flight.

Interim Action

We consider this AD interim action. Root cause is still under investigation, but the failure of the FMS is likely due to environmentally assisted cracking; a type of corrosive cracking that is time-dependent.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule based on the reported engine failure, the crack find, and that the rootcause is still somewhat unknown. We therefore determined that a repetitive inspection interval needed to be established. The repetitive inspection interval is less than the time it would take to process a proposed AD. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include the docket number FAA-2012-1017 and Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-30-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 11 GE GEnx turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 9 work-hours per engine to perform the UI of the FMS, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. The estimated cost of one set of inspection tooling is $105,000. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $113,415.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD was prompted by a report of an FMS failure and a report of a crack found in another FMS. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the FMS resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane.

(e) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(f) Ultrasonic Inspections (UIs)

(1) Perform an initial UI for cracks in the FMS before further flight.

(2) Thereafter, perform repetitive UIs for cracks in the FMS within every 90 days since-last-inspection.

(3) Remove any cracked FMS from service before further flight.

(4) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, use paragraphs 3.A and 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(9) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GEnx-1B S/B 72-0107, Revision 2, dated September 14, 2012, to do the inspections.

(5) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, use paragraphs 3.A and 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(9) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEnx-2B S/B 72-0091, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2012, to do the inspections.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

(h) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

(1) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, if you performed the initial inspection before the effective date of this AD using GE SB No. GEnx-1B S/B 72-0107, dated August 17, 2012, or Revision 1, dated August 24, 2012, you met the requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(2) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, if you performed the initial inspection before the effective date of this AD using GE SB No. GEnx-2B S/B 72-0091, dated August 22, 2012, you met the requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(3) For engines listed in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, if an initial inspection was performed before the effective date of this AD using GE Field Engineering Instruction (FEI) GEnx-1B No. 2012-014 Fan Mid Shaft Inspection, or FEI GEnx-2B No. 2012-017 Fan Mid Shaft Inspection, you met the requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) is amending its technical standards to change the order of the first five sections; add definitions and amend existing definitions; amend requirements and time restrictions for grandfathered Class II gaming systems; amend the requirements concerning minimum odds for Class II games; amend standards for test labs; remove references to the Federal Communications Commission and Underwriters Laboratory; require a player interface to display a serial number and date of manufacture; amend requirements concerning approval of downloads to a Class II gaming system; and clarify the term “alternate standard.”

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701et seq.,was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act establishes the NIGC and sets out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. On October 8, 2008, the NIGC published a final rule in theFederal RegistercalledTechnical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games.73 FR 60508. The rule added a new part to the Commission's regulations establishing a process for ensuring the integrity of electronic Class II games and aids. The standards were designed to assist tribal gaming regulatory authorities and operators with ensuring the integrity and security of Class II gaming, the accountability of Class II gaming revenue, and provide guidance to equipment manufacturers and distributors of Class II gaming systems. The standards do not classify which games are Class II and which games are Class III.

On November 18, 2010, the NIGC issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Consultation advising the public that the NIGC endeavored to conduct a comprehensive review of its regulations and requesting public comment on which were most in need of revision, in what order the Commission should review its regulations, and the process NIGC should utilize to make revisions. 75 FR 70680. On April 4, 2011, after consulting with tribes and reviewing all comments, the NIGC published a Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule (NRR) setting out a consultation schedule and process for review. 76 FR 18457. Part 547 was included in the third regulatory group reviewed pursuant to the NRR.

II. Previous Rulemaking Activity

On July 8, 2011, the Commission began a series of tribal consultations on part 547. Based in part on the recommendations to the Commission during consultations, on August 10, 2011, the Commission requested tribes nominate tribal representatives to serve on a Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist the Commission in drafting changes to part 543 and these technical standards. Beginning on October 20, 2011, the TAC held four meetings in which the Commission participated. All of the meetings were open to the public and three of the four were transcribed. On January 12, 2011, as a result of those meetings, the TAC submitted a proposed part 547 regulation to the Commission.

Upon reviewing the TAC's recommendation, and taking into consideration comments received through tribal consultations, the Commission published a discussion draft of the amended technical standards on its Web site. The discussion draft adopted a number of the TAC's recommendations, such as moving requirements that more appropriately belong to the Minimum Internal Control Standards found at 25 CFR part 543.

After publishing the discussion draft, the Commission conducted consultations in Mayetta, KS and San Diego, CA. In addition to tribal consultations, the Commission requested public comment on the discussion draft. Considering the comments received in response to the discussion draft, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on June 1, 2012. 77 FR 32465. The NPRM invited interested parties to participate in the rulemaking process by submitting comments and any supporting data to the NIGC by July 31, 2012. After receiving several requests to extend the comment period, the Commission published notification in theFederal Registerthat it would do so by two weeks, establishing a new comment deadline of August 15, 2012. 77 FR 43196.

In addition to soliciting public comment in theFederal Register, the Commission also conducted an additional five tribal consultations to discuss the proposed rule with interested tribes and industry representatives. As with the discussion draft, the consultations and written comments have proven invaluable to the Commission in making needed amendments to the Class II technical standards.

III. Review of Public Comments

In response to our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published June 1, 2012, 77 FR 32465, we received the following comments.

General Comments

Comment:A number of commenters made miscellaneous editorial suggestions not intended to change the substance of the technical standards but to improve sentence structure, correct grammar, and preserve consistency of usage throughout the document.

Response:The Commission accepted all such changes where they improve clarity and editorial consistency, and these are reflected throughout the final rule. Substantive changes are addressed in the responses to comments below.

Comment:A number of commenters recommended the Commission accept, without alteration, the draft of the Technical Standards provided to it by its tribal advisory committee. Other commenters recommended the Commission adopt a draft of the regulation prepared and submitted by the Tribal Gaming Working Group (“TGWG”).

Response:The Commission greatly appreciates the assistance and advice of the TAC in developing these amendments to the technical standards. The Commission is also aware of the hours the TGWG put into its recommended part 547 and appreciates its participation in the process. After carefully reviewing those recommendations, and in several cases incorporating them into the NPRM and this final rule, the Commission declines to adopt either proposal whole-cloth.

Comment:A few commenters suggested that the NIGC lacks authority to implement or enforce these standards.

Response:The Commission, pursuant to IGRA, possesses the authority to adopt these technical standards. Congress expressed the concern that gaming under IGRA be “conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players” and “to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation.” 25 U.S.C. 2702(2). The technical standards are designed to ensure these concerns are addressed. These standards implement the authority granted the Commission to monitor, inspect, and examine Class II gaming, 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)-(4), and to promulgate such regulations as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10).

Regulation Title

Comment:One commenter suggested simplifying the title of part 547 fromMinimum Technical Standards for Gaming Equipment Used With the Play of Class II Gamesto the simpler title ofMinimum Technical Standards for the Play of Class II Gaming Systems.

Response:The Commission agrees the title for this part should be simplified. It declines to adopt the recommended title, though, because this part applies not only to Class II gaming systems, but to all equipment, including computer, electronic, or other technologic aids used with Class II games. The Commission instead has amended the part's title toMinimum Technical Standards for Class II gaming systems and equipment.

547.2Definitions

Comment:Several commenters recommended amending the definition ofAgentto permit the use of computer applications to perform the function(s) of an agent.

Response:The Commission declines to accept this recommendation. The term “computer applications” is undefined and potentially broad. Any hardware under the control of an agent is exempt from the testing requirements of this part, and thus amending the definition ofAgentin this manner potentially would exempt hardware that is subject to testing requirements such as financial instrument acceptors, financial instrument dispensers, etc.

Comment:One commenter asked the Commission to clarify that the definition ofReflexive softwaremeans that the Class II gaming system can never look at the historical activity or status of the game or player to deprive a player of an award or to declare a player a winner. The commenter distinguishes the awarding of a prize as a result of a reflexive decision by software from “good neighbor” awards that are not part of the pay-table which, according to the commenter, are “promotions.”

Response:The commenter is correct that the definition ofReflexive softwareis not intended to encompass “promotional awards” made based on the player's accumulated “player points” or the player's membership in a casino player's club. Such awards are not based on the outcome of the game, but another set of factors separate and apart from the game results. Rather, the definition ofReflexive softwareis intended to encompass any decisions made by software that would change the outcome of the game. For example, a random ball draw produces a sequence of numbers that would entitle a player to the top advertised prize; then the system discards this sequence and replaces it with a new ball draw sequence whereby the patron wins a lower prize.

Comment:Several commenters supported the removal of the definition ofProprietary Class II gaming componentand the word “proprietary” from the definitions ofCashless systemandVoucher system.The changes were first made in the discussion draft of part 547 published by the Commission, but removed from the NPRM. Commenters recommend, however, that the Commission reiterate and further clarify the reasons for including the new and changed definitions in the discussion draft in the first place, as well as the reason for removing it from the NPRM.

Response:The Commission appreciates the comments in support of the change. The intended purpose of the new and amended definitions was to distinguish the common back of the house component systems that communicate with all Class II gaming systems, regardless of the manufacturer, from those components that work exclusively with one manufacturer's Class II system. An example of such a system is a Class II gaming system with a voucher functionality that only allows a patron to use adispensed voucheron other electronic player interfaces on the same Class II gaming system, and not on electronic player interfaces from a different Class II gaming system at the same tribal gaming facility. Conversely, voucher systems that are part of a common back of the house system allow a dispensed voucher to be used on any electronic player interface at the same tribal gaming facility.

Upon review of the standards, the Commission concluded that this definition is not necessary and has led to confusion. Therefore, it was removed from the proposed rule and not reinserted into this final rule.

547.3Who is responsible for implementing these standards?

Comment:Several commenters supported the NPRM's removal of language asserting that “TGRAs also regulate Class II gaming,” but advocate changing § 547.3(a) to reflect that TGRAs are the primary regulators of Indian Gaming. Other commenters suggested that the Commission use this preamble to reiterate its position that tribes are the primary regulators of tribal gaming.

Response:The Commission declines to insert the requested language into the regulation. The Commission agrees that tribes are the primary regulators of Indian gaming, but has never understood that to mean that the regulatory authority of a TGRA is superior to that of the NIGC. Rather, theCommission recognizes TGRAs are the day-to-day regulators of Indian gaming and the first line of oversight at every facility. Although the findings section of IGRA states that tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands, IGRA also establishes a regulatory scheme that includes the NIGC as well as tribes.

547.4What are the rules of general application for this part?

Comment:Rather than require a game to meet a minimum odds requirement, these technical standards require that a player be informed if the odds of winning a top prize exceed 100 million to one. This change was made at the discussion draft stage, and comments were overwhelmingly supportive. One commenter, however, submitted comments in opposition to the change. The comment asserts that the NPRM's removal of a minimum odds requirement is not fair to the public. According to the comment, players have the right to expect that an advertised jackpot is winnable and the regulatory community has an obligation to protect that player's rights of expectation by establishing some minimum, guaranteed threshold. The commenter recommends reinserting a minimum odds requirement.

Response:The Commission respectfully disagrees and declines to accept the commenter's suggestion. This amendment allows operations to increase advertised top prizes, but also gives the player the ability to make an informed decision regarding whether to play a game that may have a higher pay-out, but decreased odds of winning.

547.5How does a tribal government, TGRA, or tribal gaming operation comply with this part?

When implemented in 2008, the part 547 technical standards introduced several new requirements for Class II gaming systems designed to protect the security and integrity of Class II gaming systems and tribal operations. The Commission understood, however, that some existing Class II gaming systems might not meet all of the requirements of the technical standards. Therefore, to avoid any potentially significant economic and practical consequences of requiring immediate compliance, the Commission implemented a five-year “grandfather period” for eligible gaming systems. The Commission believed that a five year period was sufficient for market forces to move equipment toward compliance with the standards.

To qualify as a grandfathered game pursuant to the current regulations, a gaming system must have been submitted to a testing laboratory within 120 days of November 10, 2008. The testing laboratory must have then reviewed the gaming system for compliance with a specific, minimum set of requirements, and have issued a report to the applicable TGRA, which must have then approved the gaming system for grandfather status. At the end of the five year period—November 10, 2013—the grandfathered systems must be brought into compliance with the requirements of part 547 or removed from play.

Comment:The Commission received several comments on the grandfathering provisions, the majority of which focused on the five year duration. Commenters unanimously opposed maintaining the sunset provision in the grandfather clause, citing serious negative financial impact of requiring the grandfathered systems to be brought into full compliance or removed from play. In response to questions posed by the NIGC in the NPRM, commenters submitted that withdrawing and replacing grandfathered systems could cost in the range of $46 million to $65.5 million. One commenter asserts that twenty Oklahoma gaming tribes estimate that they will lose in excess of $82 million. One commenter also pointed out that, not only will a sunset provision have a significant economic impact in the future, many tribes have already spent millions of dollars developing and defending the legal status of the grandfathered games.

Other commenters noted that grandfathered games are valid, legal games, which have never presented, nor do they now present a risk of any kind to either the tribes or patrons. Commenters stated that they do not understand how a game can be safe and reliable one day, but not the very next. According to these commenters, no evidence has been provided that grandfathered games present some hidden danger. If there is something wrong with a particular game, though, the TGRA will act to correct it.

Other commenters point out that tribes obtained court decisions determining that certain grandfathered games are lawful Class II games. Some commenters request the NIGC include a provision explicitly stating that nothing in this part is intended to prohibit the continued use of any gaming system or component ruled to be Class II by any judicial rulings.

In lieu of mandating grandfathered systems by removed by a specific date, other commenters suggested that a more reasoned regulatory approach would be one in which grandfathered Class II gaming systems are eliminated from operation through attrition and/or market forces. One commenter noted the Commission's calculation that such removal through attrition or market forces would have occurred within the five year sunset provision was clearly wrong.

Response:The Commission appreciates all of the articulate, well reasoned comments it received on this issue. This, more than any other topic, has been the subject of long deliberation and analysis within the Commission. The Commission acknowledges that grandfathered machines have, for the most part, continued to operate with relatively few problems to the patron or the gaming operations. Nevertheless, lack of a major incident in the past does not mean that the grandfathered Class II gaming systems pose no risk to patrons and the gaming operation. For example, § 547.15 of this Rule sets minimum requirements for security of sensitive data and wireless and wired communications. Because a grandfathered system does not need to meet this standard, there may be a risk of data being intercepted or tampered with, when that data is constantly being transmitted to/from equipment on the floor.

The Commission agrees with commenters, however, that the prior Commission's analysis regarding the continued economic viability of the grandfathered systems has proven to be mistaken. The Commission established the five year sunset provision in the midst of a much stronger economy. In the time that has followed the economic downturn, though, many tribal gaming operations have set new priorities that may require keeping a grandfathered system on the gaming floor for a longer period of time.

Balancing those economic needs against a risk that increases as technology advances and grandfathered machines remain static, the Commission extended the grandfathered system by an additional five years. Under this final rule, a grandfathered system may continue in operation until November 10, 2018.

The Commission declines, however, to insert language conveying that nothing in this part is intended to prohibit the continued use of any gaming system or component ruled to be Class II by any judicial rulings. Including such a provision may lead to the false impression that this part is intended to address classification. It is not. Nothing in part 547 bears on the classification of a game as Class II or Class III. The provision requires only that, for any Class II game to be available for play, the game must havebeen certified as a grandfathered Class II gaming system or comply with the standards in part 547, and that systems must comply with all standards in part 547 by November 10, 2018.

Comment:Several commenters recommended removing the limitation in part 547 that only those systems manufactured before November 10, 2008 may be submitted for certification for grandfathering. The commenters recommend that, instead, the Commission amend § 547.5(b) to include as grandfathered games, all Class II gaming systems certified as grandfathered prior to the effective date of this final rule.

Response:The Commission declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion to allow Class II gaming systems manufactured after November 10, 2008 to be certified as grandfathered systems. When the current regulation was published in 2008, it was clear that any Class II gaming system manufactured from that date forward had to meet the minimum technical standards contained in part 547. As a result, there should not be any Class II gaming systems manufactured after November 10, 2008 that do not meet those standards.

The Commission understands, however, there are several Class II gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008 that may not have been submitted for grandfathering certification within 120 days of November 10, 2008, as the current rule requires. The Commission heard myriad reasons as to why a manufacturer or gaming operation may not have submitted systems for grandfathering certification. For example, Class II systems that, at the time, seemed unmarketable have once again become in demand for economic reasons. The Commission agrees that games that would otherwise be usable as grandfathered Class II system should be eligible for certification. For this reason, the Commission is reopening the time period to certify a Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008, as a grandfathered system.

Comment:Several commenters raised a concern that, as written, § 547.7(a) may require any Class II game system manufactured before November 10, 2008, regardless of whether the game is otherwise fully compliant with part 547, to be submitted for grandfather certification.

Response:The Commission amended the language found in the NPRM to make clear that, if a game is fully compliant, it does not need to be submitted for certification pursuant to § 547.5(a). The section now states, “[a]ny Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008, that is not already certified pursuant to this sub-section or compliant with paragraph (c) of this section may be made available for use at any tribal gaming operation if * * *”

The Commission also amended the language of § 547.5(b) to clarify that, if a grandfather system is brought into full compliance with this part, it is no longer considered a grandfathered system and the strictures of §§ 547.5(a) and (b) no longer apply.

Comment:Commenters requested adding a provision that “nothing in this section is intended to prevent a TGRA from approving a grandfathered component to be added to a fully compliant Class II gaming system, or affect the certification of a fully compliant Class II gaming system.”

Response:The Commission declines to adopt this suggestion. In the NPRM, the Commission asked for comments regarding repairs and modifications to Class II game systems. Specifically, the Commission wanted feedback on the effect of requiring all repairs, replacements, and modifications of grandfathered Class II gaming systems to be fully compliant with the regulations. Responses unanimously opposed any requirement that repairs or modifications be fully compliant. Upon considering those comments and deliberating, the Commission has left the repair, replacement, and modification sections as they are in the current rule. However, the goal of this part is to bring all Class II gaming systems further into compliance. Even the current regulation requires a modification, at a minimum, to maintain or advance the system's compliance with this part. To allow a grandfathered component to be added to a fully compliant system would work against that goal by allowing a system to be regressively modified, bringing it further out of, rather than into, compliance with these regulations. If a grandfathered component is added to an otherwise fully compliant Class II gaming system, that system ceases to be fully compliant.

Comment:Section 547.5(a)(7) of the NPRM requires a supplier of any player interface to designate each player interface with a permanently affixed label containing an identifying number and the date of manufacture. Commenters assert that this language may limit technology by eliminating the potential use of a consumer handheld device that is not distributed by the Class II game manufacturer or supplier. Commenters recommend that the proposed rule be modified to clarify that such a label is not required in the case of consumer devices such as mobile devices and tablets.

Response:The Commission appreciates the commenters' concern, but stresses the importance of the requirement that every player interface contain this information. Ensuring that this information is displayed somewhere on the player interface protects both the player and the gaming operation. This is especially true when the player interface is as easily interchangeable as a handheld device or tablet. However, to lessen the potential burden on these devices, the Commission has changed the provision, now found in § 547.5(b), to require that the player interface “exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) of this part and any other information required by the TGRA.” The provision no longer requires a “permanently affixed label” thereby giving the manufacturer or supplier additional options for ensuring that the information is displayed.

Comment:Section 547.5(c)(4) of the NPRM requires the test lab to confirm that “the operation of each player interface has been certified that it will not be compromised or affected by” certain events. Commenters point out, however, that testing labs do not testeachplayer interface that is added to the gaming floor, but rather models of the player interface. Commenters request that the Commission amend this section to clarify that it does not require every player interface to undergo testing.

Response:The Commission agrees with the commenters and has changed the section to specify that the testing laboratory's written report confirms that “the operation of a player interface prototype has been certified.”

Comment:One commenter suggested that the words “designed to be” should be inserted into the beginning of § 547.7(f) of the NPRM so that the section reads as follows: “Any class II gaming system components that store financial instruments and that are notdesigned to beoperated * * *.”

Response:The Commission declines to adopt this recommendation, but acknowledges that the section is confusing as drafted in the NPRM. To clarify that this is a technical standard capable of being tested, rather than a control standard that belongs in part 543, the Commission has changed the section to read:

“Any financial instrument storage components managed by Class II gaming system software must be located withina secure and locked area, cabinet, or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components.”

Comment:Several commenters expressed concern that the section's prohibition of any automatic changes to game rules may operate to limit the use of certain technologies that may otherwise provide for full and clear disclosure of all rules and any changes thereof.

Response:The Commission changed § 547.8(b)(1) of the NPRM to state: “Each game played on the Class II gaming system must follow and not deviate from a constant set of rules for each game provided to players pursuant to § 547.16. There must be no undisclosed changes of rules.” Although the Commission still believes that there should be no automatic rule changes, it believes that the first sentence of the section adequately addresses its concern. By requiring each game to “follow and not deviate from a constant set of rules for each game,” it clearly prohibits the game from changing the rules given to the player pursuant to § 547.16.

Comment:When the Commission published the discussion draft of these standards, it carried over the current regulation's requirement found in § 547.8(k)(3) that the validity of affected data stored in critical memory must be checked after certain events. The current regulation and discussion draft included both “each attendant paid win” and “each attendant paid progressive win” in that list of events. In response to the discussion draft, the Commission received a comment suggesting that it delete the reference to attendant paid progressive wins, as each attendant paid progressive win is just a subset of “each attendant paid win,” which is already noted in subparagraph (ii). The Commission initially agreed with the commenter, striking the requirement from the NPRM as redundant. Upon further review, however, and as the result of internal discussions, the Commission is reinstating the requirement.

“Attendant paid win” does not encompass “attendant paid progressive wins.” They are industry terms that have separate and distinct meanings. For example, Arizona Class III gaming compacts require that an attendant paid jackpot meter “shall not accumulate progressive amounts,” because attendant paid progressive payouts are recorded separately. As a result, if the Commission leaves “each attendant paid progressive win” off of the list of events that trigger a check of the affected data, it would be leaving a gap in the testing standards for critical memory. Therefore, the Commission has reinserted the requirement in this final rule.

Comment:Section 547.8 of the current technical standards contains certain requirements regarding entertaining displays. Section 547.8(a)(2)(ii) requires that, between plays of any game, or until a new game option is selected, the player interface must display the final results for the last game, including the entertaining display. Section 547.8(d)(2), meanwhile, requires that the entertaining display be included in the last game recall.

The NPRM removed references to entertaining displays from both of these sections. Nearly all of the comments expressed support for the change. Comments focused on the fact that the entertaining display has no significance to the outcome of the game. One commenter, however, opposed this change. The commenter suggested that the revision to § 547.8(a)(2)(ii) would require the game display to “go blank” between games.

The commenter also objected to the discussion draft no longer requiring last game recall to include the entertaining display. The commenter noted that when a pay-table on a player interface indicates that certain combinations of symbols will result in certain prizes, a player has a reasonable right to expect a prize if that combination of symbols appears on the pay line of the “entertainment only” display. The commenter asserts that if a game posts a prize schedule corresponding to the entertaining display instead of, or in addition to, the bingo card, and a prize paying combination of symbols appears in the entertaining display but no prizes are awarded, the integrity of the gaming system and reputation of the tribe may be called into question.

Response:The Commission respectfully disagrees. The standard, as proposed, does not require a blank screen. It requires the player interface to display the wager amount and all prizes and total credits won during the last game played, the final results of the last game played, and any default purchase or wager amount for the next play.

The Commission agrees that the reputation of an operation is of utmost importance and can reach beyond a particular facility to bolster or harm the reputation of Indian gaming. However, the game of bingo is dictated by the ball draw and the bingo card, not the entertaining display. This is made clear by the disclaimer required by § 547.16, clarifying that actual prizes are determined by bingo play not the entertaining display. For the technical standards to require last game recall to include the entertaining display would incorrectly emphasize an aspect of the game that has no bearing on its outcome.

The Commission also disagrees with the commenter's assessment that, if the entertaining display indicates a win, the patron should be paid regardless of the bingo results. Prizes should only be awarded on Class II electronic bingo games if the patron has won according to the bingo card.

547.12What are the minimum technical standards for downloading on a Class II gaming system?

Comment:The proposed rule removed the requirement from § 547.12 that the TGRA authorize all downloads by a Class II gaming system. This change was first made in the discussion draft and many commenters requested clarification that nothing prohibits the TGRA from maintaining the download approval requirement. In the NPRM, the Commission reiterated that, as stated in § 547.3(a), the Commission recognizes that the TGRA regulates technical standards and, accordingly, may implement stricter standards. One commenter to the NPRM, however, stated that although they understand that the TGRA has the authority to require restrictions to control software downloads, the purpose of including this requirement in the technical standard is to ensure that manufacturers implement processes in the design of their products. According to the commenter, these standards should incorporate controls over digital content as part of the design of Class II systems rather than implement awkward or ineffective controls after the fact. According to the commenter, the original intent of the standard was to ensure control over downloadable content until the TGRA has performed an independent software authentication.

Response:The Commission agrees with the commenter that controls must be incorporated to ensure control over downloadable content until the TGRA has performed an independent software authentication. But the Commission also believes that § 547.12, as included in the NPRM, establishes those controls. The NPRM removed the requirement that downloads be conducted only as authorized by the TGRA. The Commission continues to believe that the download authorization requirement is an internal control that belongs inpart 543, where it has been relocated. The remaining requirements in § 547.12 ensure control over the downloaded information in multiple ways. The standard requires each system to use secure methodologies in delivering the downloaded data, and provide information that the TGRA will need when making its decision to approve or disapprove use of downloaded information. The standard also requires that any downloaded game software be capable of being verified by the Class II gaming system. All of these requirements provide the TGRA with the information necessary to exercise its authority, as required by the part 543 Minimum Internal Control Standards, to approve downloads.

547.14What are the minimum technical standards for electronic random number generation?

Comment:Several commenters noted that changes made to § 547.14(b)(2) regarding random number generation (“RNG”) could negatively impact Class II gaming. According to the commenters, the current rule permits the use of various discretionary RNG tests. The proposed rule, however, mandated three specific tests. Although in many instances a Class II gaming system that has already been certified as compliant may have performed these now mandatory tests, other systems may not have been certified because the tests were not previously required. Thus, this new requirement may necessitate recertification of a fully compliant system at a substantial cost and inconvenience to tribal gaming operations. The commenters recommended either restoring the wording of the current rule or including language to clarify that these new requirements are not applicable to previously certified Class II gaming systems.

Response:The Commission agrees with the commenters and has restored the wording of § 547.14(b)(2) to that of the current rule. The change to three mandatory RNG tests was made after discussions with the TAC, and was based on the fact that the Commission was informed that these three tests were nearly always performed as a matter of course and should be made mandatory. However, the Commission acknowledges that this change would create an additional testing requirement and run the risk of decertifying several machines. Rather than making the mandatory testing requirement prospective, thereby creating a third category of certified games (those certified as grandfathered, those certified as fully compliant prior to the effective date without the mandatory RNG tests, and those certified as fully compliant after the effective date with the mandatory RNG test), the Commission restored the language of the current rule, and all tests are discretionary. The Commission reminds TGRAs, however, that these are minimum standards—a TGRA may require that any of the tests be performed as part of the certification process.

Comment:Several commenters expressed concern about § 547.14(f) of the NPRM, which requires an RNG that provides output scaled to given ranges to use an unbiased algorithm. The current regulation specifies that a scaling algorithm is considered to be unbiased if the measured bias is no greater than 1 in 100 million. This ratio was later updated by NIGC bulletin to 1 in 50 million. The NPRM, however, changed the standard to require that the RNG use an unbiased algorithm and any bias be reported to the TGRA. Commenters assert that this is an unrealistic or untestable standard. In support, commenters point out that requiringanybias is a maximum standard, not minimum. Commenters also note that, because there will always be some—often insignificant—measure of bias, the standard will require near constant reporting to the TGRA.

Response:The Commission agrees with the commenters and has restored the current regulation's standard. The rule still requires the RNG to use an unbiased algorithm, but specifies that a scaling algorithm is unbiased if the measured bias is no greater than 1 in 50 million. As the Commission previously explained in Bulletin 2008-4, this bias standard adequately protects the statistical randomness of the number generator.

Comment:Commenters suggest that the § 547.16(b) requirement that player interfaces continually display disclaimers is burdensome and unfeasible in smaller devices such as hand held devices. A suggested option is to include alternate language requiring the disclaimer to be displayed only until acknowledged by the player.

Response:The Commission declines to adopt this recommendation. The disclaimers are of critical importance, and, therefore, the Commission believes that it is necessary that they be displayed somewhere on the player interface at all times.

547.17How does a TGRA apply to implement an alternate minimum standard to those required by this part?

Comment:Section 547.17 permits a TGRA to approve an alternate standard to those set out in this part. That alternate standard, however, is subject to the review and approval of the NIGC Chair. To facilitate that review, the TGRA must submit (1) a detailed report to the NIGC, which must include an explanation of how the alternate standard achieves a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace, and (2) the alternate standard, as approved, and the record upon which it is based. Some commenters stated that these two requirements are redundant and the “record upon which [the alternate standard] is based” will necessarily include the detailed statement.

Response:The Commission disagrees. The first requirement is a statement from the TGRA to the Commission about the standard as approved, while the second requirement is the standard itself and all of the documents and information the TGRA used in deciding whether to grant the alternate standard.

Comment:A few commenters asked for the standard be changed to clarify that the TGRA can implement the alternate standard as soon as it is approved by the TGRA.

Response:The Commission has amended § 547.17(a) to include the statement that a gaming operation may implement an alternate standard upon TGRA approval subject to the Chair's decision pursuant to sub-section (b). The Commission believes that this language makes clear that an alternate standard may be implemented upon TGRA approval. To further alleviate any potential confusion regarding the alternate standard process, the Commission has also added language specifying that, if the Chair approves an alternate standard, the gaming operation may continue to operate accordingly. The rule now also specifies, however, that, if the Chair objects to the alternate standard, the gaming operation must cease using the alternate standard and must follow the applicable minimum technical standard.

Finally, this final rule clarifies that the TGRA may appeal the Chair's decision to approve or object to an alternate standard pursuant to 25 CFR subchapter H. The Commission believes that, because the rule requires the TGRA to approve and submit the alternate standard for NIGC review, the TGRA should be the entity to appeal a Chair decision it disagrees with.

IV. Regulatory MattersRegulatory Flexibility Act

The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of smallentities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,et seq.Moreover, Indian tribes are not considered to be small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions. Nor will the rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,et seq.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.and assigned OMB Control Number 3141-0014 which expired. The NIGC is in the process of reinstating that Control Number. The final rule does not require any significant changes in information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 547

Gambling, Indian—Indian lands, Indian—tribal government.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the NIGC revises 25 CFR part 547 as follows:PART 547—MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CLASS II GAMING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENTSec.547.1What is the purpose of this part?547.2What are the definitions for this part?547.3Who is responsible for implementing these standards?547.4What are the rules of general application for this part?547.5How does a tribal government, TGRA, or tribal gaming operation comply with this part?547.6What are the minimum technical standards for enrolling and enabling Class II gaming system components?547.7What are the minimum technical hardware standards applicable to Class II gaming systems?547.8What are the minimum technical software standards applicable to Class II gaming systems?547.9What are the minimum technical standards for Class II gaming system accounting functions?547.10What are the minimum standards for Class II gaming system critical events?547.11What are the minimum technical standards for money and credit handling?547.12What are the minimum technical standards for downloading on a Class II gaming system?547.13What are the minimum technical standards for program storage media?547.14What are the minimum technical standards for electronic random number generation?547.15What are the minimum technical standards for electronic data communications between system components?547.16What are the minimum standards for game artwork, glass, and rules?547.17How does a TGRA apply to implement an alternate minimum standard to those required by this part?Authority:

25 U.S.C. 2706(b).

§ 547.1What is the purpose of this part?

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A)(i), permits the use of electronic, computer, or other technologic aids in connection with the play of Class II games. This part establishes the minimum technical standards governing the use of such aids.

§ 547.2What are the definitions for this part?

For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:

Account access component.A component within a Class II gaming system that reads or recognizes account access media and gives a patron the ability to interact with an account.

Account access medium.A magnetic stripe card or any other medium inserted into, or otherwise made to interact with, an account access component in order to give a patron the ability to interact with an account.

Advertised top prize.The highest single prize available based on information contained in the prize schedule and help screens.

Agent.A person authorized by the tribal gaming operation, as approved by the TGRA, to make decisions or to perform tasks or actions on behalf of the tribal gaming operation.

Audit mode.The mode in which it is possible to view Class II gaming system accounting functions and statistics and perform non-player-related functions.

Cancel credit.An action initiated by the Class II gaming system by which some or all of a player's credits are removed by an attendant and paid to the player.

Cashless system.A system that performs cashless transactions and maintains records of those cashless transactions.

Cashless transaction.A movement of funds electronically from one component to another.

CD-ROM.Compact Disc—Read Only Memory.

Chair.The Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission.

Class II gaming.Class II gaming has the same meaning as defined in 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A).

Class II gaming system.All components, whether or not technologic aids in electronic, computer, mechanical, or other technologic form, that function together to aid the play of one or more Class II games, including accounting functions mandated by these regulations.

Commission.The National Indian Gaming Commission established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701et seq.

Coupon.A financial instrument of fixed wagering value that can only be used to acquire non-cashable credits through interaction with a voucher system. This does not include instruments such as printed advertising material that cannot be validated directly by a voucher system.

Download package.Approved data sent to a component of a Class II gamingsystem for such purposes as changing the component software.

DVD.Digital Video Disk or Digital Versatile Disk.

Electromagnetic interference.The disruption of operation of an electronic device when it is in the vicinity of an electromagnetic field in the radio frequency spectrum that is caused by another electronic device.

Electrostatic discharge.A single event, rapid transfer of electrostatic charge between two objects, usually resulting when two objects at different potentials come into direct contact with each other.

Enroll.The process by which a Class II gaming system identifies and establishes communications with an additional system component to allow for live gaming activity to take place on that component.

EPROM.Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory—a non-volatile storage chip or device that may be filled with data and information, that, once written, is not modifiable, and that is retained even if there is no power applied to the system.

Fault.An event that, when detected by a Class II gaming system, causes a discontinuance of game play or other component functions.

Flash memory.Non-volatile memory that retains its data when the power is turned off and that can be electronically erased and reprogrammed without being removed from the circuit board.

Game software.The operational program or programs that govern the play, display of results, and/or awarding of prizes or credits for Class II games.

Gaming equipment.All electronic, electro-mechanical, mechanical, or other physical components utilized in the play of Class II games.

Hardware.Gaming equipment.

Interruption.Any form of mis-operation, component failure, or interference to the Class II gaming equipment.

Modification.A revision to any hardware or software used in a Class II gaming system.

Non-cashable credit.Credits given by an operator to a patron; placed on a Class II gaming system through a coupon, cashless transaction or other approved means; and capable of activating play but not being converted to cash.

Patron.A person who is a customer or guest of the tribal gaming operation and may interact with a Class II game. Also may be referred to as a “player”.

Patron deposit account.An account maintained on behalf of a patron, for the purpose of depositing and withdrawing cashable funds for the primary purpose of interacting with a gaming activity.

Player interface.Any component(s) of a Class II gaming system, including an electronic or technologic aid (not limited to terminals, player stations, handhelds, fixed units, etc.), that directly enables player interaction in a Class II game.

Prize schedule.The set of prizes available to players for achieving pre-designated patterns in a Class II game.

Program storage media.An electronic data storage component, such as a CD-ROM, EPROM, hard disk, or flash memory on which software is stored and from which software is read.

Progressive prize.A prize that increases by a selectable or predefined amount based on play of a Class II game.

Random number generator (RNG).A software module, hardware component or combination of these designed to produce outputs that are effectively random.

Reflexive software.Any software that has the ability to manipulate and/or replace a randomly generated outcome for the purpose of changing the results of a Class II game.

Removable/rewritable storage media.Program or data storage components that can be removed from gaming equipment and be written to, or rewritten by, the gaming equipment or by other equipment designed for that purpose.

Server.A computer that controls one or more applications or environments within a Class II gaming system.

Test/diagnostics mode.A mode on a component that allows various tests to be performed on the Class II gaming system hardware and software.

TGRA.Tribal gaming regulatory authority, which is the entity authorized by tribal law to regulate gaming conducted pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Unenroll.The process by which a Class II gaming system disconnects an enrolled system component, disallowing any live gaming activity to take place on that component.

Voucher.A financial instrument of fixed wagering value, usually paper, that can be used only to acquire an equivalent value of cashable credits or cash through interaction with a voucher system.

Voucher system.A component of the Class II gaming system that securely maintains records of vouchers and coupons; validates payment of vouchers; records successful or failed payments of vouchers and coupons; and controls the purging of expired vouchers and coupons.

§ 547.3Who is responsible for implementing these standards?

(a)Minimum standards.These are minimum standards and a TGRA may establish and implement additional technical standards that do not conflict with the standards set out in this part.

(b)No limitation of technology.This part should not be interpreted to limit the use of technology or to preclude the use of technology not specifically referenced.

(c)Only applicable standards apply.Gaming equipment and software must meet all applicable requirements of this part. For example, if a Class II gaming system lacks the ability to print or accept vouchers, then any standards that govern vouchers do not apply. These standards do not apply to associated equipment such as voucher and kiosk systems.

(d)State jurisdiction.Nothing in this part should be construed to grant to a state jurisdiction over Class II gaming or to extend a state's jurisdiction over Class III gaming.

§ 547.4What are the rules of general application for this part?

(a)Fairness.No Class II gaming system may cheat or mislead users. All prizes advertised must be available to win during the game. A test laboratory must calculate and/or verify the mathematical expectations of game play, where applicable, in accordance with the manufacturer stated submission. The results must be included in the test laboratory's report to the TGRA. At the request of the TGRA, the manufacturer must also submit the mathematical expectations of the game play to the TGRA.

(b)Approved gaming equipment and software only.All gaming equipment and software used with Class II gaming systems must be identical in all respects to a prototype reviewed and tested by a testing laboratory and approved for use by the TGRA pursuant to § 547.5(a) through (c).

(c)Proper functioning.All gaming equipment and software used with ClassII gaming systems must perform according to the manufacturer's design and operating specifications.

§ 547.5How does a tribal government, TGRA, or tribal gaming operation comply with this part?

(a)Grandfathered gaming systems:Any Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008, that is not already certified pursuant to this sub-section or compliant with paragraph (c) of this section may be made available for use at any tribal gaming operation if:

(1) The TGRA submits the Class II gaming system software that affects the play of the Class II game, together with the signature verification required by § 547.8(f) to a testing laboratory recognized pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section within 120 days after October 22, 2012;

(2) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), § 547.14, and any additional technical standards adopted by the TGRA;

(3) The testing laboratory provides the TGRA with a formal written report setting forth and certifying to the findings and conclusions of the test;

(4) The TGRA makes a finding, in the form of a certificate provided to the supplier or manufacturer of the Class II gaming system, that the Class II gaming system qualifies for grandfather status under the provisions of this section. A TGRA may make such a finding only upon receipt of a testing laboratory's report that the Class II gaming system is compliant with § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), § 547.14, and any other technical standards adopted by the TGRA. If the TGRA does not issue the certificate, or if the testing laboratory finds that the Class II gaming system is not compliant with § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), § 547.14, or any other technical standards adopted by the TGRA, then the gaming system must immediately be removed from play and not be utilized.

(5) The TGRA retains a copy of any testing laboratory's report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the report remains available to the public for play; and

(6) The TGRA retains a copy of any certificate of grandfather status so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the certificate remains available to the public for play.

(b)Grandfather provisions.All Class II gaming systems manufactured on or before November 10, 2008, that have been certified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, are grandfathered Class II gaming systems for which the following provisions apply:

(1) Grandfathered Class II gaming systems may continue in operation for a period of ten years from November 10, 2008.

(2) Grandfathered Class II gaming systems may only be used as approved by the TGRA. The TGRA must transmit its notice of that approval, identifying the grandfathered Class II gaming system and its components, to the Commission.

(3) Remote communications may only be allowed if authorized by the TGRA.

(4) As permitted by the TGRA, individual hardware or software components of a grandfathered Class II gaming system may be repaired or replaced to ensure proper functioning, security, or integrity of the grandfathered Class II gaming system.

(5) All modifications that affect the play of a grandfathered Class II gaming system must be approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, except for the following:

(i) Any software modifications that the TGRA finds will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's overall compliance with this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter, after receiving a new testing laboratory report that the modifications are compliant with the standards established by § 547.4(a), § 547.8(b), § 547.14, and any other standards adopted by the TGRA;

(ii) Any hardware modifications that the TGRA finds will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's overall compliance with this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter; and

(iii) Any other modification to the software of a grandfathered Class II gaming system that the TGRA finds will not detract from, compromise or prejudice:

(A) The proper functioning, security, or integrity of the Class II gaming system, and

(B) The gaming system's overall compliance with the requirements of this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter.

(iv) No such modification may be implemented without the approval of the TGRA. The TGRA must maintain a record of the modification so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play and must make the record available to the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).

(6) The player interface must exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) and any other information required by the TGRA.

(7) If a grandfathered Class II gaming system is approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, it ceases to be a grandfathered system and the restrictions of paragraph (a) and (b) of this section no longer apply.

(c)Submission, testing, and approval—generally.Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, a TGRA may not permit the use of any Class II gaming system, or any associated cashless system or voucher system or any modification thereto, in a tribal gaming operation unless:

(1) The Class II gaming system, cashless system, voucher system, or modification thereto has been submitted to a testing laboratory;

(2) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:

(i) This part;

(ii) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and

(iii) The TGRA;

(3) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section;

(4) The testing laboratory's written report confirms that the operation of a player interface prototype has been certified that it will not be compromised or affected by electrostatic discharge, liquid spills, electromagnetic interference, radio frequency interference, or any other tests required by the TGRA;

(5) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the Class II gaming system, cashless system, or voucher system conforms to the standards established by:

(i) This part;

(ii) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and

(iii) The TGRA.

(6) The TGRA retains a copy of the testing laboratory's report required by paragraph (c) of this section for as long as the Class II gaming system, cashless system, voucher system, or modification thereto that is the subject of the report remains available to the public for play in its tribal gaming operation.

(d)Emergency hardware and software modifications.(1) A TGRA, in itsdiscretion, may permit the modification of previously approved hardware or software to be made available for play without prior laboratory testing or review if the modified hardware or software is:

(i) Necessary to correct a problem affecting the fairness, security, or integrity of a game or accounting system or any cashless system, or voucher system; or

(ii) Unrelated to game play, an accounting system, a cashless system, or a voucher system.

(2) If a TGRA authorizes modified software or hardware to be made available for play or use without prior testing laboratory review, the TGRA must thereafter require the hardware or software manufacturer to:

(i) Immediately advise other users of the same hardware or software of the importance and availability of the update;

(ii) Immediately submit the new or modified hardware or software to a testing laboratory for testing and verification of compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and

(iii) Immediately provide the TGRA with a software signature verification tool meeting the requirements of § 547.8(f) for any new or modified software.

(3) If a TGRA authorizes a software or hardware modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play and must make the record available to the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).

(e)Compliance by charitable gaming operations.This part does not apply to charitable gaming operations, provided that:

(1) The tribal government determines that the organization sponsoring the gaming operation is a charitable organization;

(2) All proceeds of the charitable gaming operation are for the benefit of the charitable organization;

(3) The TGRA permits the charitable organization to be exempt from this part;

(4) The charitable gaming operation is operated wholly by the charitable organization's employees or volunteers; and

(5) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable gaming operation does not exceed $1,000,000.

(f)Testing laboratories.(1) A testing laboratory may provide the examination, testing, evaluating and reporting functions required by this section provided that:

(i) It demonstrates its integrity, independence and financial stability to the TGRA.

(ii) It demonstrates its technical skill and capability to the TGRA.

(iii) If the testing laboratory is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, a tribe, it must be independent from the manufacturer and gaming operator for whom it is providing the testing, evaluating, and reporting functions required by this section.

(iv) The TGRA:

(A) Makes a suitability determination of the testing laboratory based upon standards no less stringent than those set out in § 533.6(b)(1)(ii) through (v) of this chapter and based upon no less information than that required by § 537.1 of this chapter, or

(B) Accepts, in its discretion, a determination of suitability for the testing laboratory made by any other gaming regulatory authority in the United States.

(v) After reviewing the suitability determination and the information provided by the testing laboratory, the TGRA determines that the testing laboratory is qualified to test and evaluate Class II gaming systems.

(2) The TGRA must:

(i) Maintain a record of all determinations made pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section for a minimum of three years and must make the records available to the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make available for public review records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).

(ii) Place the testing laboratory under a continuing obligation to notify it of any adverse regulatory action in any jurisdiction where the testing laboratory conducts business.

(iii) Require the testing laboratory to provide notice of any material changes to the information provided to the TGRA.

§ 547.6What are the minimum technical standards for enrolling and enabling Class II gaming system components?

(a)Printed circuit boards.(1) Printed circuit boards that have the potential to affect the outcome or integrity of the game, and are specially manufactured or proprietary and not off-the-shelf, must display a unique identifier such as a part number and/or revision number, which must be updated to reflect new revisions or modifications of the board.

(2) Switches or jumpers on all circuit boards that have the potential to affect the outcome or integrity of any game, progressive award, financial instrument, cashless transaction, voucher transaction, or accounting records must be capable of being sealed.

(b)Electrostatic discharge.Class II gaming system components accessible to the public must be constructed so that they exhibit immunity to human body electrostatic discharges on areas exposed to contact. Static discharges of ±15 kV for air discharges and ±7.5 kV for contact discharges must not cause damage or inhibit operation or integrity of the Class II gaming system.

(c)Physical enclosures.Physical enclosures must be of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry. All protuberances and attachments such as buttons, identification plates, and labels must be sufficiently robust to avoid unauthorized removal.

(d)Player interface.The player interface must exhibit a serial number and date of manufacture and include a method or means to:

(1) Display information to a player; and

(2) Allow the player to interact with the Class II gaming system.

(e)Account access components.A Class II gaming system component that reads account access media must be located within a secure and locked area, cabinet, or housing that is of a robustconstruction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components. In addition, the account access component:

(1) Must be constructed so that physical tampering leaves evidence of such tampering; and

(2) Must provide a method to enable the Class II gaming system to interpret and act upon valid or invalid input or error condition.

(f)Financial instrument storage components.Any financial instrument storage components managed by Class II gaming system software must be located within a secure and locked area, cabinet, or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components.

(g)Financial instrument acceptors.(1) Any Class II gaming system components that handle financial instruments and that are not operated under the direct control of an agent must:

(i) Be located within a secure and locked area, cabinet, or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components;

(ii) Be able to detect the entry of valid or invalid financial instruments and to provide a method to enable the Class II gaming system to interpret and act upon valid or invalid input or error condition; and

(iii) Be constructed to permit communication with the Class II gaming system of the accounting information required by § 547.9(a) and by applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.

(2) Prior to completion of a valid financial instrument transaction by the Class II gaming system, no monetary amount related to that instrument may be available for play. For example, credits may not be available for play until a financial instrument inserted into an acceptor is secured in the storage component.

(3) The monetary amount related to all valid financial instrument transactions by the Class II gaming system must be recorded as required by § 547.9(a) and the applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.

(h)Financial instrument dispensers.(1) Any Class II gaming system components that dispense financial instruments and that are not operated under the direct control of a tribal gaming operation agent must:

(i) Be located within a secure, locked and tamper-evident area or in a locked cabinet or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components;

(ii) Provide a method to enable the Class II gaming system to interpret and act upon valid or invalid input or error condition; and

(iii) Be constructed to permit communication with the Class II gaming system of the accounting information required by § 547.9(a) and by applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.

(2) The monetary amount related to all valid financial instrument transactions by the Class II gaming system must be recorded as required by § 547.9(a), the applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter, and any TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.

(i)Game Outcome Determination Components.Any Class II gaming system logic components that affect the game outcome and that are not operated under the direct control of a tribal gaming operation agent must be located within a secure, locked and tamper-evident area or in a locked cabinet or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components. DIP switches or jumpers that can affect the integrity of the Class II gaming system must be capable of being sealed by the TGRA.

(j)Door access detection.All components of the Class II gaming system that are locked in order to meet the requirements of this part must include a sensor or other methods to monitor an open door. A door open sensor, and its components or cables, must be secure against attempts to disable them or interfere with their normal mode of operation.

(k)Separation of functions/no limitations on technology.Nothing herein prohibits the account access component, financial instrument storage component, financial instrument acceptor, and financial instrument dispenser from being included within the same component or being separated into individual components.

(a)Player interface displays.(1) If not otherwise provided to the player, the player interface must display the following:

(i) The purchase or wager amount;

(ii) Game results; and

(iii) Any player credit balance.

(2) Between plays of any game and until the start of the next play, or until the player selects a new game option such as purchase or wager amount or card selection, whichever is earlier, if not otherwise provided to the player, the player interface must display:

(i) The total purchase or wager amount and all prizes and total credits won for the last game played;

(ii) The final results for the last game played; and

(iii) Any default purchase or wager amount for the next play.

(b)Game initiation and play.(1) Each game played on the Class II gaming system must follow and not deviate from a constant set of rules for each game provided to players pursuant to § 547.16. There must be no undisclosed changes of rules.

(2) The Class II gaming system may not alter or allow to be altered the card permutations used for play of a Class II game unless specifically chosen by the player prior to commitment to participate in the game. No duplicate cards may be sold for any common draw.

(3) No game play may commence, and no financial instrument or credit may be accepted on the affected player interface, in the presence of any fault condition that affects the outcome of the game, or while in test, audit, or lock-up mode.

(4) Each player must initiate his or her participation in the play of a game.

(c)Audit mode.(1) If an audit mode is provided, the Class II gaming system must, for those components actively involved in the audit:

(i) Provide all accounting functions required by § 547.9, by applicable provisions of any Commission regulations governing minimum internal control standards, and by any internal controls adopted by the tribe or TGRA;

(ii) Display player interface identification; and

(iii) Display software version or game identification.

(2) Audit mode must be accessible by a secure method such as an agent PIN, key, or other auditable access control.

(3) Accounting function data must be accessible by an agent at any time, except during a payout, during a handpay, or during play.

(4) The Class II gaming system must disable financial instrument acceptance on the affected player interface while in audit mode, except during financial instrument acceptance testing.

(d)Last game recall.The last game recall function must:

(1) Be retrievable at all times, other than when the recall component is involved in the play of a game, upon the operation of an external key-switch, entry of an audit card, or a similar method;

(2) Display the results of recalled games as originally displayed or in text representation so as to enable the TGRA or operator to clearly identify the sequences and results that occurred;

(3) Allow the Class II gaming system component providing game recall, upon return to normal game play mode, to restore any affected display to the positions, forms and values displayed before access to the game recall information; and

(4) Provide the following information for the current and previous four games played and must display:

(i) Play start time, end time, and date;

(ii) The total number of credits at the start of play;

(iii) The purchase or wager amount;

(iv) The total number of credits at the end of play;

(v) The total number of credits won as a result of the game recalled, and the value in dollars and cents for progressive prizes, if different;

(vi) For bingo games and games similar to bingo, also display:

(A) The card(s) used by the player;

(B) The identifier of the bingo game played;

(C) The numbers or other designations drawn, in the order that they were drawn;

(D) The numbers or other designations and prize patterns covered on each card;

(E) All prizes won by the player, including winning patterns, if any; and

(F) The unique identifier of the card on which prizes were won;

(vii) For pull-tab games only, also display:

(A) The result(s) of each pull-tab, displayed in the same pattern as on the tangible pull-tab;

(B) All prizes won by the player;

(C) The unique identifier of each pull tab; and

(D) Any other information necessary to fully reconstruct the current and four previous plays.

(e)Voucher and credit transfer recall.Notwithstanding the requirements of any other section in this part, a Class II gaming system must have the capacity to:

(1) Display the information specified in § 547.11(b)(5)(ii) through (vi) for the last five vouchers or coupons printed and the last five vouchers or coupons accepted; and

(2) Display a complete transaction history for the last five cashless transactions made and the last five cashless transactions accepted.

(f)Software signature verification.The manufacturer or developer of the Class II gaming system must provide to the testing laboratory and to the TGRA an industry-standard methodology, acceptable to the TGRA, for verifying the Class II gaming system game software. For example, for game software stored on rewritable media, such methodologies include signature algorithms and hashing formulas such as SHA-1.

(g)Test, diagnostic, and demonstration modes.If test, diagnostic, and/or demonstration modes are provided, the Class II gaming system must, for those components actively involved in the test, diagnostic, or demonstration mode:

(1) Clearly indicate when that component is in the test, diagnostic, or demonstration mode;

(2) Not alter financial data on that component other than temporary data;

(3) Only be available after entering a specific mode;

(4) Disable credit acceptance and payment unless credit acceptance or payment is being tested; and

(5) Terminate all mode-specific functions upon exiting a mode.

(h)Multigame.If multiple games are offered for player selection at the player interface, the player interface must:

(1) Provide a display of available games;

(2) Provide the means of selecting among them;

(3) Display the full amount of the player's credit balance;

(4) Identify the game selected or being played; and

(5) Not force the play of a game after its selection.

(i)Program interruption and resumption.The Class II gaming system software must be designed so that upon resumption following any interruption, the system:

(1) Is able to return to a known state;

(2) Must check for any fault condition;

(3) Must verify the integrity of data stored in critical memory;

(4) Must return the purchase or wager amount to the player in accordance with the rules of the game; and

(5) Must detect any change or corruption in the Class II gaming system software.

(1) Modification of progressive parameters must be conducted in a secure manner approved by the TGRA. Such parameters may include:

(i) Increment value;

(ii) Secondary pool increment(s);

(iii) Reset amount(s);

(iv) Maximum value(s); and

(v) Identity of participating player interfaces.

(2) The Class II gaming system component or other progressive controller must provide a means of creating a progressive balancing report for each progressive link it controls. At a minimum, that report must provide balancing of the changes of the progressive amount, including progressive prizes won, for all participating player interfaces versus current progressive amount(s), plus progressive prizes. In addition, the report must account for, and not be made inaccurate by, unusual events such as:

(i) Class II gaming system critical memory clears;

(ii) Modification, alteration, or deletion of progressive prizes;

(iii) Offline equipment; or

(iv) Multiple site progressive prizes.

(k)Critical memory.(1) Critical memory may be located anywhere within the Class II gaming system. Critical memory is any memory that maintains any of the following data:

(i) Accounting data;

(ii) Current credits;

(iii) Configuration data;

(iv) Last game play recall information required by paragraph (d) of this section;

(v) Game play recall information for the current game play, if incomplete;

(vi) Software state (the last normal state software was in before interruption);

(vii) RNG seed(s), if necessary for maintaining integrity;

(viii) Encryption keys, if necessary for maintaining integrity;

(ix) Progressive prize parameters and current values;

(x) The five most recent financial instruments accepted by type, excluding coins and tokens;

(xi) The five most recent financial instruments dispensed by type, excluding coins and tokens; and

(xii) The five most recent cashless transactions paid and the five most recent cashless transactions accepted.

(2) Critical memory must be maintained using a methodology that enables errors to be identified and acted upon. All accounting and recall functions must be verified as necessary to ensure their ongoing integrity.

(3) The validity of affected data stored in critical memory must be checked after each of the following events:

(i) Every restart;

(ii) Each attendant paid win;

(iii) Each attendant paid progressive win;

(iv) Each sensored door closure; and

(v) Every reconfiguration, download, or change of prize schedule or denomination requiring operator intervention or action.

(l)Secured access.Class II gaming systems that use a logon or other means of secured access must include a user account lockout after a predetermined number of consecutive failed attempts to access the Class II gaming system.

(1) Amount In: The total value of all financial instruments and cashless transactions accepted by the Class II gaming system. Each type of financial instrument accepted by the Class II gaming system must be tracked independently per financial instrument acceptor, and as required by applicable requirements of TGRA regulations that meet or exceed the minimum internal control standards at 25 CFR part 543.

(2) Amount Out: The total value of all financial instruments and cashless transactions paid by the Class II gaming system, plus the total value of attendant pay. Each type of financial instrument paid by the Class II Gaming System must be tracked independently per financial instrument dispenser, and as required by applicable requirements of TGRA regulations that meet or exceed the minimum internal control standards at 25 CFR part 543.

(1) Accounting data must be stored with at least eight decimal digits.

(2) Credit balances must have sufficient digits to accommodate the design of the game.

(3) Accounting data displayed to the player may be incremented or decremented using visual effects, but the internal storage of this data must be immediately updated in full.

(4) Accounting data must be updated upon the occurrence of the relevant accounting event.

(5) Modifications to accounting data must be recorded, including the identity of the person(s) making the modifications, and be reportable by the Class II gaming system.

(c)Rollover.Accounting data that rolls over to zero must not corrupt data.

(d)Credit balance display and function.(1) Any credit balance maintained at the player interface must be prominently displayed at all times except:

(i) In audit, configuration, recall and test modes; or

(ii) Temporarily, during entertaining displays of game results.

(2) Progressive prizes may be added to the player's credit balance provided that:

(i) The player credit balance is maintained in dollars and cents;

(ii) The progressive accounting data is incremented in number of credits; or

(iii) The prize in dollars and cents is converted to player credits or transferred to the player's credit balance in a manner that does not mislead the player or cause accounting imbalances.

(3) If the player credit balance displays in credits, but the actual balance includes fractional credits, the Class II gaming system must display the fractional credit when the player credit balance drops below one credit.

§ 547.10What are the minimum standards for Class II gaming system critical events?

(a)Fault events.(1) The following are fault events that must be capable of being recorded by the Class II gaming system:

EventDefinition and action to be taken(i) Component faultReported when a fault on a component is detected. When possible, this event message should indicate what the nature of the fault is.(ii) Financial storage component fullReported when a financial instrument acceptor or dispenser includes storage, and it becomes full. This event message must indicate what financial storage component is full.(iii) Financial output component emptyReported when a financial instrument dispenser is empty. The event message must indicate which financial output component is affected, and whether it is empty.(iv) Financial component faultReported when an occurrence on a financial component results in a known fault state.(v) Critical memory errorSome critical memory error has occurred. When a non-correctable critical memory error has occurred, the data on the Class II gaming system component can no longer be considered reliable. Accordingly, any game play on the affected component must cease immediately, and an appropriate message must be displayed, if possible.(vi) Progressive communication faultIf applicable; when communications with a progressive controller component is in a known fault state.(vii) Program storage medium faultThe software has failed its own internal security check or the medium itself has some fault. Any game play on the affected component must cease immediately, and an appropriate message must be displayed, if possible.

(2) The occurrence of any event identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be recorded.

(3) Upon clearing any event identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Class II gaming system must:

(i) Record that the fault condition has been cleared;

(ii) Ensure the integrity of all related accounting data; and

(iii) In the case of a malfunction, return a player's purchase or wager according to the rules of the game.

(b)Door open/close events.(1) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Class II gaming system must perform the following for any component affected by any sensored door open event:

(i) Indicate that the state of a sensored door changes from closed to open or opened to closed;

(2) The Class II gaming system may return the component to a ready to play state when all sensored doors are closed.

(c)Non-fault events.The following non-fault events are to be acted upon as described below, if applicable:

EventDefinition(1) Player interface off during playIndicates power has been lost during game play. This condition must be reported by the affected component(s).(2) Player interface power onIndicates the player interface has been turned on. This condition must be reported by the affected component(s).(3) Financial instrument storage component container/stacker removedIndicates that a financial instrument storage container has been removed. The event message must indicate which storage container was removed.§ 547.11What are the minimum technical standards for money and credit handling?

(a)Credit acceptance, generally.(1) Upon any credit acceptance, the Class II gaming system must register the correct number of credits on the player's credit balance.

(b)Credit redemption, generally.(1) For cashable credits on a player interface, players must be allowed to cash out and/or redeem those credits at the player interface except when that player interface is:

(i) Involved in the play of a game;

(ii) In audit mode, recall mode or any test mode;

(iii) Detecting any sensored door open condition;

(iv) Updating the player credit balance or total win accounting data; or

(v) Displaying a fault condition that would prevent cash-out or credit redemption. In this case a fault indication must be displayed.

(2) For cashable credits not on a player interface, the player must be allowed to cash out and/or redeem those credits at any time.

(3) A Class II gaming system must not automatically pay an award subject to mandatory tax reporting or withholding.

(4) Credit redemption by voucher or coupon must conform to the following:

(i) A Class II gaming system may redeem credits by issuing a voucher or coupon when it communicates with a voucher system that validates the voucher or coupon.

(ii) A Class II gaming system that redeems credits by issuing vouchers and coupons must either:

(A) Maintain an electronic record of all information required by paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) through (vi) of this section; or

(B) Generate two identical copies of each voucher or coupon issued, one to be provided to the player and the other to be retained within the electronic player interface for audit purposes.

(5) Valid vouchers and coupons from a voucher system must contain the following:

(i) Tribal gaming operation name and location;

(ii) The identification number of the Class II gaming system component or the player interface number, as applicable;

(iii) Date and time of issuance;

(iv) Alpha and numeric dollar amount;

(v) A sequence number;

(vi) A validation number that:

(A) Is produced by a means specifically designed to prevent repetition of validation numbers; and

(B) Has some form of checkcode or other form of information redundancy to prevent prediction of subsequent validation numbers without knowledge of the checkcode algorithm and parameters;

(vii) For machine-readable vouchers and coupons, a bar code or other form of machine readable representation of the validation number, which must have enough redundancy and error checking to ensure that 99.9% of all misreads are flagged as errors;

(viii) Transaction type or other method of differentiating voucher and coupon types; and

(ix) Expiration period or date.

(6) Transfers from an account may not exceed the balance of that account.

(7) For Class II gaming systems not using dollars and cents accounting and not having odd cents accounting, the Class II gaming system must reject any transfers from voucher systems or cashless systems that are not even multiples of the Class II gaming system denomination.

(8) Voucher systems must include the ability to report redemptions per redemption location or user.

§ 547.12What are the minimum technical standards for downloading on a Class II gaming system?

(a)Downloads.(1) Downloads are an acceptable means of transporting approved content, including, but not limited to software, files, data, and prize schedules.

(2) Downloads must use secure methodologies that will deliver the download data without alteration or modification, in accordance with § 547.15(a).

(3) Downloads conducted during operational periods must be performed in a manner that will not affect game play.

(4) Downloads must not affect the integrity of accounting data.

(5) The Class II gaming system must be capable of providing:

(i) The time and date of the initiation of the download;

(ii) The time and date of the completion of the download;

(iii) The Class II gaming system components to which software was downloaded;

(iv) The version(s) of download package and any software downloaded. Logging of the unique software signature will satisfy this requirement;

(v) The outcome of any software verification following the download (success or failure); and

(vi) The name and identification number, or other unique identifier, of any individual(s) conducting or scheduling a download.

(b)Verifying downloads.Downloaded software on a Class II gaming system must be capable of being verified by the Class II gaming system using a software signature verification method that meets the requirements of § 547.8(f).

§ 547.13What are the minimum technical standards for program storage media?

(a)Removable program storage media.All removable program storage media must maintain an internal checksum or signature of its contents. Verification of this checksum or signature is to be performed after every restart. If the verification fails, the affected Class II gaming system component(s) must lock up and enter a fault state.

(b)Nonrewritable program storage media.(1) All EPROMs and Programmable Logic Devices that have erasure windows must be fitted with covers over their erasure windows.

(2) All unused areas of EPROMs must be written with the inverse of the erased state (zero bits (00 hex) for most EPROMs), random data, or repeats of the program data.

(3) Flash memory storage components intended to have the same logical function as ROM, must be write-protected or otherwise protected from unauthorized modification.

(4) The write cycle must be closed or finished for all CD-ROMs such that it is not possible to write any further data to the CD.

(5) Write protected hard disks are permitted if the hardware means ofenabling the write protect is easily viewable and can be sealed in place. Write protected hard disks are permitted using software write protection verifiable by a testing laboratory.

(c)Writable and rewritable program storage media.(1) Writable and rewritable program storage, such as hard disk drives, Flash memory, writable CD-ROMs, and writable DVDs, may be used provided that the software stored thereon may be verified using the mechanism provided pursuant to § 547.8(f).

(2) Program storage must be structured so there is a verifiable separation of fixed data (such as program, fixed parameters, DLLs) and variable data.

(d)Identification of program storage media.All program storage media that is not rewritable in circuit, (EPROM, CD-ROM) must be uniquely identified, displaying:

(1) Manufacturer;

(2) Program identifier;

(3) Program version number(s); and

(4) Location information, if critical (socket position 3 on the printed circuit board).

§ 547.14What are the minimum technical standards for electronic random number generation?

(a)Properties.All RNGs must produce output having the following properties:

(1) Statistical randomness;

(2) Unpredictability; and

(3) Non-repeatability.

(b)Statistical randomness.(1) Numbers or other designations produced by an RNG must be statistically random individually and in the permutations and combinations used in the application under the rules of the game. For example, if a bingo game with 75 objects with numbers or other designations has a progressive winning pattern of the five numbers or other designations on the bottom of the card, and the winning of this prize is defined to be the five numbers or other designations that are matched in the first five objects drawn, the likelihood of each of the 75C5 combinations are to be verified to be statistically equal.

(2) Numbers or other designations produced by an RNG must pass the statistical tests for randomness to a 99% confidence level, which may include:

(i) Chi-square test;

(ii) Runs test (patterns of occurrences must not be recurrent); and

(iii) Serial correlation test potency and degree of serial correlation (outcomes must be independent from the previous game).

(iv) Equi-distribution (frequency) test;

(v) Gap test;

(vi) Poker test;

(vii) Coupon collector's test;

(viii) Permutation test;

(ix) Spectral test; or

(x) Test on subsequences.

(c)Unpredictability.(1) It must not be feasible to predict future outputs of an RNG, even if the algorithm and the past sequence of outputs are known.

(2) Unpredictability must be ensured by reseeding or by continuously cycling the RNG, and by providing a sufficient number of RNG states for the applications supported.

(3) Re-seeding may be used where the re-seeding input is at least as statistically random as, and independent of, the output of the RNG being re-seeded.

(d)Non-repeatability.The RNG may not be initialized to reproduce the same output stream that it has produced before, nor may any two instances of an RNG produce the same stream as each other. This property must be ensured by initial seeding that comes from:

(1) A source of “true” randomness, such as a hardware random noise generator; or

(2) A combination of timestamps, parameters unique to a Class II gaming system, previous RNG outputs, or other, similar method.

(e)General requirements.(1) Software that calls an RNG to derive game outcome events must immediately use the output returned in accordance with the game rules.

(2) The use of multiple RNGs is permitted as long as they operate in accordance with this section.

(3) RNG outputs must not be arbitrarily discarded or selected.

(4) Where a sequence of outputs is required, the whole of the sequence in the order generated must be used in accordance with the game rules.

(5) The Class II gaming system must neither adjust the RNG process or game outcomes based on the history of prizes obtained in previous games nor use any reflexive software or secondary decision that affects the results shown to the player or game outcome.

(2) Provide numbers scaled to the ranges required by game rules, and notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, may discard numbers that do not map uniformly onto the required range but must use the first number in sequence that does map correctly to the range;

(3) Be capable of producing every possible outcome of a game according to its rules; and

(4) Use an unbiased algorithm. A scaling algorithm is considered to be unbiased if the measured bias is no greater than 1 in 50 million.

§ 547.15What are the minimum technical standards for electronic data communications between system components?

(a)Sensitive data.Communication of sensitive data must be secure from eavesdropping, access, tampering, intrusion or alteration unauthorized by the TGRA. Sensitive data includes, but is not limited to:

(b)Wireless communications.(1) Wireless access points must not be accessible to the general public.

(2) Open or unsecured wireless communications are prohibited.

(3) Wireless communications must be secured using a methodology that makes eavesdropping, access, tampering, intrusion or alteration impractical. By way of illustration, such methodologies include encryption, frequency hopping, and code division multiplex access (as in cell phone technology).

(c) Methodologies must be used that will ensure the reliable transfer of data and provide a reasonable ability to detect and act upon any corruption of the data.

(e) Remote communications may only be allowed if authorized by the TGRA. Class II gaming systems must have the ability to enable or disable remote access, and the default state must be set to disabled.

(f) Failure of data communications must not affect the integrity of critical memory.

(g) The Class II gaming system must log the establishment, loss, and re-establishment of data communications between sensitive Class II gaming system components.

§ 547.16What are the minimum standards for game artwork, glass, and rules?

(a)Rules, instructions, and prize schedules, generally.The following must at all times be displayed or made readily available to the player upon request:

(1) Game name, rules, and options such as the purchase or wager amount stated clearly and unambiguously;

(2) Denomination;

(3) Instructions for play on, and use of, the player interface, including the functions of all buttons; and

(4) A prize schedule or other explanation, sufficient to allow a player to determine the correctness of all prizes awarded, including:

(i) The range and values obtainable for any variable prize;

(ii) Whether the value of a prize depends on the purchase or wager amount; and

(iii) The means of division of any pari-mutuel prizes; but

(iv) For Class II Gaming Systems, the prize schedule or other explanation need not state that subsets of winning patterns are not awarded as additional prizes (for example, five in a row does not also pay three in a row or four in a row), unless there are exceptions, which must be clearly stated.

(c) Odds notification.If the odds of winning any advertised top prize exceeds 100 million to one, the Player Interface must display: “Odds of winning the advertised top prize exceeds 100 million to one” or equivalent.

§ 547.17How does a TGRA apply to implement an alternate minimum standard to those required by this part?

(a)TGRA approval.(1) A TGRA may approve an alternate standard from those required by this part if it has determined that the alternate standard will achieve a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace. A gaming operation may implement an alternate standard upon TGRA approval subject to the Chair's decision pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

(2) For each enumerated standard for which the TGRA approves an alternate standard, it must submit to the Chair within 30 days a detailed report, which must include the following:

(i) An explanation of how the alternate standard achieves a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace; and

(ii) The alternate standard as approved and the record on which the approval is based.

(3) In the event that the TGRA or the tribe's government chooses to submit an alternate standard request directly to the Chair for joint government to government review, the TGRA or tribal government may do so without the approval requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(b)Chair review.(1) The Chair may approve or object to an alternate standard approved by a TGRA.

(2) If the Chair approves the alternate standard, the Tribe may continue to use it as authorized by the TGRA.

(3) If the Chair objects to the alternate standard, the operation may no longer use the alternate standard and must follow the relevant technical standard set forth in this part.

(4) Any objection by the Chair must be in written form with an explanation why the alternate standard as approved by the TGRA does not provide a level of security or integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace.

(5) If the Chair fails to approve or object in writing within 60 days after the date of receipt of a complete submission, the alternate standard is considered approved by the Chair. The Chair may, upon notification to the TGRA, extend this deadline an additional 60 days.

This document announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) decision to modify the Hawaii State Plan's “final approval” determination under Section 18(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) and to transition to “initial approval” status. OSHA is reinstating concurrent federal enforcement authority over occupational safety and health issues in the private sector, which have been solely covered by the Hawaii State Plan since 1984.

Hawaii administers an OSHA-approved state plan to develop and enforce occupational safety and health standards for public and private sector employers, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. The Hawaii State Plan received initial federal OSHA plan approval on December 28, 1973 (39 FR 1010) and the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Division (HIOSH) of the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations is designated as the state agency responsible for administering the state plan. Pursuant to Section 18(e) of the Act, OSHA granted Hawaii “final approval” effective April 30, 1984 (49 FR 19182). Final approval under Section 18(e) requires, among other things, a finding by the Assistant Secretary that the plan, in actual operation, provides worker protection “at least as effective as” that provided by federal OSHA. A final approval determination results in the relinquishment of federal concurrent enforcement authority in the state with respect to occupational safety and health issues covered by the plan. 29 U.S.C. 667(e).

During the past three years, the Hawaii State Plan has faced major budgetary and staffing restraints that have significantly affected its program. Impacts on the state plan are clearly reflected throughout OSHA's recent monitoring reports. Joint efforts were made by federal OSHA and HIOSH toaddress these issues, yet Hawaii continues to face severe programmatic, staffing and training challenges. Therefore, the Hawaii Director of Labor and Industrial Relations has requested a temporary modification of the state plan's approval status from final approval to initial approval, to permit exercise of supplemental federal enforcement activity and to allow Hawaii sufficient time and assistance to strengthen its state plan. Hawaii has pledged to accomplish the necessary corrective action to regain final approval status in a timely manner. Hawaii's proactive efforts demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that workers are afforded adequate protection during this period of program strengthening and improvement.

Pursuant to the procedures set forth at 29 CFR 1902.47et seq.,OSHA published notice of its reconsideration of Hawaii's 18(e) determination; proposed resumption of concurrent federal enforcement authority; and a request for written comments and opportunity to request an informal hearing on July 19, 2012 (77 FR 42462). That notice also contains a more detailed description of the Hawaii State Plan and the identified deficiencies. The 35-day comment period closed on August 23, 2012 and OSHA received four (4) written comments, including two (2) requests for a hearing.

Decision

Pursuant to the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 1902.47et seq.,the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health has made a final decision to modify the Hawaii State Plan's approval status from 18(e) final approval to initial approval, and to reinstate concurrent federal enforcement authority over occupational safety and health issues in the state, pending the necessary corrective action by the state plan in order to once again meet the criteria for an 18(e) final approval determination. Concurrent federal enforcement authority will be exercised in Hawaii effective September 21, 2012.

The Assistant Secretary's decision is based upon the facts determined by OSHA in monitoring the Hawaii State Plan and HIOSH's request for enforcement assistance, and was reached after opportunity for public comment. Three organizations and one individual filed a comment with the agency within the public comment period. Comments were received from the Hawaii Business League, Veterans of Safety Hawaii Chapter, Island Insurance Company, Ltd., and Dr. Walter Chun. OSHA has reviewed and considered the comments, and the following discussion addresses the comments and OSHA's responses.

The Hawaii Business League stated a strong preference for Hawaii to maintain a state plan and voiced favorable support for a transition to initial approval as means to progress towards restoration of Hawaii's 18(e) final approval status. Island Insurance Company, Ltd. and Dr. Walter Chun raised concerns about how HIOSH allows for greater penalty reductions than federal OSHA, and about whether fines/penalties will be part of the criteria for the Hawaii State Plan to regain its 18(e) final approval status. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.42(a), “[i]n making an affirmative 18(e) determination, the Assistant Secretary determines that a State has applied the provisions of its plan, or any modification thereof, in accordance with the criteria of Section 18(c) of the Act and that the State has applied the provisions of this part in a manner which renders the actual operations of the state program ‘at least as effective as' operations under the Federal program.” One of the criteria in Section 18(c) of the Act is the development and enforcement of safety and health standards, and penalties are an essential component of effective safety and health enforcement in the workplace. Therefore, Hawaii's overall penalty policy would be evaluated in the course of regaining 18(e) final approval status.

In response to Dr. Walter Chun's further questions, the addendum referenced in the Operational Status Agreement (OSA) will not be available for public comment. The addendum is an internal working document between the Director of the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations and OSHA's Regional Administrator for Region IX, outlining the plan of action and milestones for the Hawaii State Plan to work towards regaining 18(e) final approval status. During the period of concurrent state and federal authority, both Hawaii and federal OSHA have authority to conduct inspections and issue citations. However, the terms of the OSA will delineate areas of coverage to ensure employers are not burdened with duplicative enforcement efforts. Federal OSHA compliance officers will be conducting inspections, in accordance with the terms of the OSA, and issuing citations and penalties under federal standards. OSHA is not aware that any changes in the state's rules or regulations are necessary to accommodate concurrent jurisdiction.

Dr. Walter Chun and Veterans of Safety Hawaii Chapter both requested an informal public hearing, to address the public's questions and comments. The public comments and questions submitted on the docket have all been addressed in this notice and there are no substantial issues raised that necessitate a public hearing.

Effect of the Decision

The Assistant Secretary's decision to modify the Hawaii State Plan's status from final to initial approval would authorize OSHA to carry on an enforcement program to supplement that of HIOSH, including independent federal or joint state and federal inspections resulting in issuance of appropriate federal citations. However, modifying Hawaii's final approval status would not affect Hawaii's basic plan approval and would not affect Hawaii's legal authority to enforce state occupational safety and health standards in the state's workplaces. This modification would leave Hawaii's federally-approved state plan completely in place, and would simply reinstate federal OSHA's authority to supplement state enforcement during this difficult period.

Federal OSHA inspections or joint state and federal OSHA inspections may result in the issuance of appropriate federal citations and penalties. Federal OSHA compliance officers may issue citations effective immediately. Contested federal citations and penalties will be reviewed by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). Federal OSHA will continue to exercise federal authority over safety and health issues excluded from coverage under the state plan; monitoring inspections including accompanied visits; and other federal authority not affected by the 1984 final approval decision.

Notice of the Operational Status Agreement

Federal OSHA will exercise its enforcement authority according to the terms of the 2012 OSA between OSHA and HIOSH, which specifies the respective areas of federal and state authority. OSHA will continue to exercise federal enforcement of federal requirements for safety and health in private sector maritime activities, 29 CFR part 1915 and parts 1917-1920, as well as provisions of the general industry and construction standards appropriate to hazards found in those employments. Federal jurisdiction also remains in effect over: Federal government employers and workers, and contractors or subcontractors on any federal establishment where the land is determined to be exclusive federal jurisdiction; private sector employers within the secured borders ofall military installations where access is controlled; and U.S. Postal Service (USPS), including USPS workers, and contract workers and contractor-operated facilities engaged in USPS mail operations. OSHA will also exercise authority over OSHA requirements promulgated under the Act subsequent to the OSA where necessary to protect employers, as in the case of emergency temporary standards promulgated under Section 6(c) of the Act, until Hawaii has promulgated comparable standards.

The OSA further provides that federal enforcement authority under Section 18 of the Act may be exercised with regard to federal occupational safety and health requirements over agriculture and general industries, excluding transportation and warehousing. Potential violations where the employer is in compliance with federal regulations, but not with more stringent HIOSH regulations, shall be referred to HIOSH.

HIOSH will retain enforcement authority in any case commenced before September 21, 2012. Additionally, HIOSH will exercise inspection and enforcement authority over: The construction industry, transportation and warehousing; state and local government as an employer; and referrals from federal OSHA to HIOSH.

The OSA also provides that HIOSH and federal OSHA will retain concurrent enforcement authority over employment discrimination complaints, pursuant to Section 11(c) of the Act. Employees may continue to file occupational safety and health whistleblower complaints with federal OSHA, the state, or both. However, the OSA provides that, in accordance with OSHA's long-standing policy, OSHA will generally continue to refer all employment discrimination complaints that are federally-filed by private-sector and non-federal public sector employees to HIOSH for investigation, a determination on the merits, and the pursuit of a remedy, if appropriate. The OSA explains that federal OSHA will investigate any allegations of retaliation covered under the OSHA-administered whistleblower laws other than Section 11(c).

If there arises any case or circumstance in which authority is not clearly defined in the OSA, OSHA and HIOSH will resolve the issue. In the meantime, (e.g., where quick response is required such as a fatality, catastrophe or significant event), OSHA shall respond to the situation.

Federal OSHA may conduct monitoring visits under Section 18(f) of the OSH Act. The OSA also provides that OSHA may also accompany HIOSH on enforcement activities for purposes of technical assistance and training. And HIOSH may accompany federal OSHA on enforcement activities for training purposes. The OSA is subject to revision or termination by mutual agreement of the parties, by either party upon 30 days written notice, or when the results of evaluation or monitoring reveal that state operations are at least as effective as the federal program and responsibilities may be returned to the state. Finally, the OSA includes an Addendum with goals and milestones for returning all enforcement responsibilities to Hawaii.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Unfunded Mandates

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601et seq.(as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the final rule to determine whether it would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since no employer of any size will have any new compliance obligations, the Agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA also reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.) and Executive Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). Because this rule imposes no new compliance obligations, it requires no additional expenditures by either private employers or State, local, and tribal governments.

Federalism

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the States and establishes specific review procedures the Federal government must follow as it carries out policies which affect State or local governments. OSHA has consulted extensively with Hawaii about this modification of its approval status. Although OSHA has determined that the requirements and consultation procedures provided in Executive Order 13132 are not applicable to approval decisions under the Act, which have no effect outside the particular State, OSHA has reviewed this final rule, and believes it is consistent with the principles and criteria set forth in the Executive Order.

Why the Immediate Effective Date

OSHA finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective immediately upon publication in theFederal Register.The current situation in the state indicates the immediate need for supplementary federal occupational safety and health enforcement activity for the protection of workers in Hawaii. In addition, today's action does not impose any new compliance obligations on affected employers since standards enforced under the Hawaii State Plan are either identical to federal standards, or more stringent.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 1905.

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 18, 2012.David Michaels,Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 29 CFR part 1952 is amended as set forth below.

PART 1952—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for part 1952 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

(a) With Hawaii's agreement and as a result of the Assistant Secretary's reinstatement of Hawaii's initial approval status, Hawaii and Federal OSHA will begin exercising concurrent jurisdiction under section 18(e) of the Act on September 21, 2012.

(b) To provide a workable division of enforcement responsibilities, Hawaii and Federal OSHA have entered into an operational status agreement. Notice of this agreement was provided in theFederal Registeron September 21, 2012.Electronic copies of the agreement are available at:http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/hawaii.html.

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the running of the Portland Marathon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the down or closed position during the marathon.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. October 7, 2012 through 3 p.m. October 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0862 and are available online by going tohttp://www.regulations.gov,inserting USCG-2012-0862 in the “Keyword” box and then clicking “Search”. They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 206-220-7282, emailrandall.d.overton@uscg.mil.If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Multnomah County has requested that the Broadway Bascule Bridge remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants of the Portland Marathon. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 11.7 and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. Vessels which do not require a bridge opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this closure period. Under normal conditions this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897 which allows for the bridge to remain closed between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and also requires advance notification when a bridge opening is needed. This deviation period is from 7:30 a.m. October 7, 2012 through 3 p.m. October 7, 2012. The deviation allows the bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 7:30 a.m. October 7, 2012 through 3 p.m. October 7, 2012. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The draw span will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating regulation that governs the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) Drawbridge across Old River, mile 10.4, at Orwood, CA. The deviation is to allow the bridge owner to perform essential mechanical repairs on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. October 22, 2012 to 4 p.m. on October 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of the docket USCG-2012-0808 and are available online by going tohttp://www.regulations.gov,inserting USCG-2012-0808 in the “Keyword” box and then clicking “Search”. They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, emailDavid.H.Sulouff@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BNSF has requested a temporary change to the operation of the BNSF Railroad Drawbridge, mile 10.4, over Old River, at Orwood, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 11.2 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens promptly and fully when a request to open is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

This temporary deviation has been coordinated with commercial operators and various marinas. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. The BNSF drawbridge across Middle River provides alternative access for vessel transits.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Forest Service is making purely technical, nonsubstantive changes to Forest Service regulations. These regulations authorize issuance of an order prohibiting operation or use of any internal or external combustion engine without a spark arresting device that is properly installed, maintained, and in effective working order in accordance with the standards. The reference to the standard is obsolete and needs to be updated. The standard does not apply and needs to be removed.

DATES:

The rule is effective September 21, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Pearson, Assistant Director for Enforcement and Liaison, at 703-605-4527 or via email atkenpearson@fs.fed.us.Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The standard listed in paragraph (j)(1) is “Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Standard 5100-1a.” However, the current U.S. Forest Service Standard is 5100-1d. Since this standard is continually being updated, the standard in paragraph (j)(1) is being revised to read, “U.S. Forest Service Standard 5100-1.”

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts certain rulemaking from its public notice and comment requirements, including rulemaking involving “public property” (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)), such as federal lands managed by the Forest Service. Furthermore, the APA allows agencies to promulgate rules without public notice and comment when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).

In 1971, Secretary of Agriculture Hardin announced a voluntary waiver of the public property exemption from public notice and comment rulemaking under the APA (July 24, 1971; 36 FR 13804). Thus, agencies in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) generally provide public notice and comment in promulgating rules. However, the Hardin policy permits USDA agencies to promulgate final rules without public notice and comment when the agencies find for good cause that notice and comment procedures would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The courts have recognized this good cause exception to the Hardin policy and have indicated that since the public notice and comment requirement was adopted voluntarily, the Secretary should be afforded “more latitude” in making a good cause determination. SeeAlcarazv.Block,746 F.2d 593, 612 (9th Cir. 1984).

The Department finds that good cause exists to exempt this rulemaking from public notice and comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This rulemaking merely updates a reference and removes an inapplicable reference. Public notice and comment are unnecessary for these minor, purely technical changes.

3. Regulatory CertificationsEnvironmental Impact

This final rule revises law enforcement regulations governing certain activities on National Forest System lands. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. The Department has determined that this final rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 on regulatory planning and review. It has been determined that this final rule is not significant. This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor will it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. This final rule will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will this final rule raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this final rule will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

This final rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602et seq.). This final rule makes purely technical, nonsubstantive changes to Forest Service regulations. Therefore, the Department has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act because this final rule will not impose record-keeping requirements on them; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.

Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

The Department has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism. The Department has determined that this final rule conforms to the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Department has determined that no further determination of federalism implications is necessary at this time.

This final rule does not have tribal implications per E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required in connection with the final rule.

No Takings Implications

The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630 and has determined that this final rule will not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

Civil Justice Reform

The Department has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this final rule, (1) All State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this final rule or that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this final rule; and (3) it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

Energy Effects

The Department has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply. The Department has determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

This final rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply to this final rule.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 261

Law enforcement, National forests.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service is amending subpart B of part 261 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 261—PROHIBITIONSSubpart B—General Prohibitions1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(j) Operating or using any internal or external combustion engine without a spark arresting device that is properly installed, maintained, and in effective working order in accordance with U.S. Forest Service Standard 5100-1.

This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of flumioxazin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective September 21, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 20, 2012, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593, is available either electronically throughhttp://www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. General InformationA. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site athttp://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objectionor request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 20, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593, by one of the following methods:

•Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

•Hand Delivery:To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In theFederal Registerof August 26, 2011, 76 FR 53374 (FRL-8884-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F7886) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.568 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, in or on Pea and bean, dried shelled (except soybean), crop subgroup 6C at 0.1 parts per million (ppm); Rapeseed, crop subgroup 20A at 0.35 ppm for seed, 0.04 ppm for meal, and 0.02 ppm for refined oil; Sunflower, crop subgroup 20B at 0.5 ppm for seed, 0.03 for meal, 0.02 ppm for refined oil; and Wheat at 0.35 ppm for grain, 5.0 ppm for straw, 0.02 ppm for forage, 0.02 ppm for hay, 0.35 ppm for bran, 0.05 ppm for flour, 0.35 ppm for germ, 0.08 ppm for middlings, 0.11 ppm for shorts, 110 ppm for aspirated grain fractions. In addition, the petition requested revocation of the existing tolerance for residues of flumioxazin in or on beans, dry seed, if a tolerance for Crop subgroup 6C (which includes this commodity) is set as requested. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593 athttp://www.regulations.gov.There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and use of the OECD tolerance calculation procedures, EPA has determined that a single tolerance to cover all of the commodities within each of the crop subgroups is appropriate versus individual tolerances for each of the commodities within the crop subgroups. In addition, EPA has determined that several of the proposed tolerances for wheat commodities, including wheat bran, flour, germ, middlings, and shorts, are not required. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *.”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flumioxazin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flumioxazin follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. A summary of the toxicological findings are as follows:

Flumioxazin has mild or low acute toxicity when administered orally, dermally, or by inhalation. It is not an eye or skin irritant, or a dermal sensitizer. In general, the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies demonstrated that toxic effects associated with flumioxazin include anemia as well as effects on the liver and the cardiovascular system. Developmental effects were observed in developmental rat studies but not in developmental rabbit studies. Hematologic (hematopoietic) effects of anemia were noted in rats, consisting of alterations in hemoglobin parameters. Increased renal toxicity in male rats was also reported following chronic exposure. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the recently submitted guideline studies. Increased quantitative susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental toxicity studies. Fetal effects were observed in the absence of maternal toxicity. In addition, both increased qualitative and quantitative susceptibility were observed in the rat reproduction study. Severe fetal effects were observed at lower doses than milder parental effects. In most of the available mutagenicity studies, flumioxazin was negative for mutagenicity; however, aberrations were seen in a chromosomal aberration assay (CHO cells). Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats, flumioxazin is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flumioxazin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level(NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found athttp://www.regulations.govin the document,Flumioxazin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Uses on Wheat, Sunflower, Safflower, Flax, Lentils and Field Peason page 20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors (U/SF) are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, seehttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flumioxazin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Flumioxazin for Use in Human Health Risk AssessmentExposure/scenarioPoint of departure and uncertainty/

1.Dietary exposure from food and feed uses.In evaluating dietary exposure to flumioxazin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing flumioxazin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.568. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flumioxazin in food as follows:

i.Acute exposure.Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

Such effects were identified for flumioxazin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed residues are present in all commodities at the tolerance level and that 100% of commodities with tolerances are treated with flumioxazin. In addition, EPA used default concentration factors to estimate residues of flumioxazin in processed commodities. Acute dietary exposure was only estimated for females 13-49 years old based on cardiovascular effects in fetuses observed in the oral developmental and supplemental pre-natal rat studies. An endpoint of concern was not established for acute dietary assessment of the general population.

ii.Chronic exposure.In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed residues are present in all commodities at the tolerance level and that 100% of commodities with tolerances are treated with flumioxazin. In addition, EPA used default concentration factors to estimate residues of flumioxazin in processed commodities.

iii.Cancer.Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that flumioxazin does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk was not conducted.

2.Dietary exposure from drinking water.The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for flumioxazin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of flumioxazin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations, based on the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for flumioxazin and its major degradates (482-HA and APF) under the use as an aquatic herbicide, were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 400 parts per billion (ppb) was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 142 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3.From non-dietary exposure.The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Flumioxazin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Aquatic areas, ornamental gardens, ornamental trees, and turf in residential lawns, athletic fields, parks, and golf courses. EPA assessed residential exposure with the assumption that homeowner handlers wear shorts, short-sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes, and that they complete all tasks associated with the use of a pesticide product including mixing/loading, if needed, as well as the application. Residential handler exposure scenarios for both dermal and inhalation are considered to be short-term only, due to the infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner products. EPA uses the term “post-application” to describe exposure to individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. Flumioxazin can be used in many areas that can be frequented by the general population including residential areas, golf courses, lakes, and ponds. As a result, individuals can be exposed by entering these areas if they have been previously treated. Therefore, short-term and intermediate dermal post-application exposures and risks were assessed for adults and children. In addition, oral post-application exposures and risks were assessed for children to be protective of possible hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion activities that may occur on treated turf areas. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

4.Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity.Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found flumioxazin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and flumioxazin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that flumioxazin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with othersubstances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

1.In general.Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2.Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.Evidence of increased susceptibility to fetuses was observed in the oral and dermal developmental rat studies [i.e. cardiovascular anomalies (ventricular septal defect)] that occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity. Additionally, the rat reproduction study demonstrated evidence of qualitative and quantitative post-natal susceptibility because reproductive effects in offspring were observed at doses lower than those that caused parental/systemic toxicity, and because the reproductive effects in offspring were considered to be more severe than the parental/systemic effects.

3.Conclusion.EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for oral and dermal exposures, but be retained at 10X for inhalation exposures. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for flumioxazin is largely complete with the exception of an inhalation developmental study, which was recently determined necessary, in order to better assess route-specific inhalation risks. In the absence of this study, a 10x FQPA safety factor to account for database uncertainty is needed to protect the safety of infants and children to assess risks for all inhalation exposure scenarios. The toxicity profile can be characterized for all effects, including potential developmental and reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity with the current database.

ii. There is no indication that flumioxazin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. Although increased susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental and reproductive studies, EPA's concern for these effects is low, and there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity because: The developmental toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs are well characterized after oral and dermal exposure; the offspring toxicity NOAEL and LOAEL are well characterized in the reproduction study and; the Points of Departure (POD) for assessing risk to developing fetuses, infants, and children have been selected either from the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies from the chronic study which established a lower POD for chronic effects than the studies in pre- and postnatal animals. Thus, the regulatory endpoints for flumioxazin are protective of the increased susceptibility seen in the developmental and reproduction studies, and there are no residual concerns for these effects.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. Because the acute and chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on several conservative assumptions (100% of crops treated with residues present at tolerance levels, default processing factors and screening level drinking water estimates), EPA is confident that the dietary exposure assessments do not underestimate risk to the general U.S. population and various population subgroups. Similarly, EPA does not believe that the non-dietary residential exposures are underestimated because they are based on the conservative assumptions of EPA's Draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments (December 1997), and updates contained in the Science Advisory Council Policy 12 (February 2001) as well as the uses specified in the proposed labels.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1.Acute risk.Acute aggregate risk takes into account exposure to residues in food and drinking water alone. Therefore, acute aggregate risk is equivalent to the acute dietary risk as discussed in Unit III.C.1.i. The acute dietary exposure estimate for females 13-49 years old will utilize 68% of the aPAD, which is below the Agency's LOC (100% of the aPAD).

2.Chronic risk.Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to flumioxazin from food and water will utilize 54% of the cPAD for all infants (< 1 year old) the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of flumioxazin is not expected.

3.Short-term risk.Flumioxazin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to flumioxazin.

Different methodologies were used for the presentation of short-term aggregate risk for adults and children. An aggregate risk estimate (ARI) approach was required to estimate short-term adult aggregate risk because there are different LOCs for adult dermal and inhalation exposures, 100 and 1,000, respectively. For short-term child aggregate risk, the combined MOE approach was used because the endpoint of concern (decreased pup weight) and the LOC are the same. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate ARI of 1.15 for adults and aggregate MOE of 150 for children. Because EPA's LOC for flumioxazin is an ARI of 1 or below and a MOE of 100 or below, these aggregate risk estimates are not of concern.

4.Intermediate-term risk.Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Since the short- and intermediate-term toxicological endpoints for flumioxazin are the same for each route of exposure, only short-term exposures were assessed.

5.Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population.Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, flumioxazin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6.Determination of safety.Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to flumioxazin residues.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. There are no MRLs established by Codex, Canada, or Mexico for any of the proposed commodities in the current registration actions.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

EPA has revised the requested tolerances by adjusting the tolerance values, substituting crop group tolerances for individual tolerances, and dropping unnecessary tolerances. The tolerance levels were revised based on analysis of the field trial data using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures. EPA believes they differ from the petitioner's proposed tolerances for dried pea, rapeseed subgroup 20A, and wheat grain and straw due to the petitioner having possibly used the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NAFTA) tolerance calculation procedures as opposed to the OECD procedure. In addition, EPA is setting single tolerances for the crop subgroups (6C, 20A and 20B) versus individual tolerances for each commodity within the subgroups since maximum residues of the commodities within the crop subgroups differ by less than 5X. The proposed tolerances for wheat commodities (bran, flour, germ, middlings, and shorts) are also not necessary since they are covered by the tolerance being set for wheat grain.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2 H -1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1 H -isoindole-1,3(2 H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities as set forth in the regulatory text. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only flumioxazin.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.) do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in theFederal Register. This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (the Committee) administers the AbilityOne® Program pursuant to the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act. The Committee is substituting the term “disabled” for “handicapped” in a term defined in its regulation. Additionally, the Committee has deliberated and unanimously voted to approve the use of “severely” disabled and “significantly” disabled as interchangeable or synonymous terms when referring to people who are severely disabled within the AbilityOne Program. The Committee's approval to use “severely” and significantly” as interchangeable or synonymous terms within the AbilityOne Program specifically does not make any change to the definition of “severely disabled individual” in the JWOD Act or expand the population of individuals served within the AbilityOne Program.

Dennis Lockard, General Counsel, by telephone (703) 603-7740, or by facsimile at (703) 603-0030, or by mail at the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) administers the AbilityOne® Program pursuant to the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act (41 U.S.C. 8501et seq.). The AbilityOne Program provides employment opportunities for people who are blind or have other severe disabilities through the manufacture and delivery of products and services to the Federal Government. 41 U.S.C. 8503(d) authorizes the Committee to make rules and regulations necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act and the Committee has done so at 41 CFR Chapter 51. Within the AbilityOne Program, the term “severely disabled” is used to describe people with severe disabilities who qualify to participate in the program; however, within the Committee's regulation, the termsother severely handicapped and severely handicapped individualsare used to define persons with severe disabilities. The Committee is amending its regulation to correct the terminology and remove references to “handicap” or “handicapped” in the list of definitions.

Additionally, the Committee is aware that the term “severely disabled” is no longer the description of choice of all disability advocates and terms such as “significantly disabled” have gained acceptance within the disability communities. The Committee is also cognizant that the term “individual with a significant disability” (instead ofsevere disability) was included and defined in the 1998 reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the term is being included in other congressional actions and agency regulations. In conjunction with the broader use of the terms “significant” disability and “significantly” disabled, the AbilityOne Program's participants, stakeholders and supporters have increasingly accepted and used these terms within the program. Consequently, in order to ensure alignment and consistency throughout the AbilityOne Program, the Committee has voted to permit use of the terms “significant” or “significantly” as interchangeable or synonymous with “severe” or “severely” when describing individuals with severe disabilities who qualify to participate in the AbilityOne Program. The action by the Committee to use the terms interchangeably or synonymously does not, however, result in any change to the definition or eligibility (either expand or narrow) of the population served in the AbilityOne Program under the authority of the JWOD Act. In addition, this action does not make any change to the statutory name of the Committee or permit the use of the synonymous term when describing the Committee.

The Committee has issued a final rule because this rule does not have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the AbilityOne Program and does not have a significant cost or administrative impact on others not associated with the AbilityOne Program. Therefore, public comment is not required. This interpretive rule is action by the Committee to ensure that appropriate terminology is used within the AbilityOne Program to describe a significant portion of the people who are served under this program.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs, benefits and burdens of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effective, distributive impacts, and equity). This is not a significantregulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804; therefore, Congressional notification is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

Administrative Procedure Act

The Committee finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) that the statute does not apply to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. This final rule simply substitutes a word in a term defined in the regulation and authorizes the use of specific interchangeable or synonymous terms when describing individuals who are eligible to participate in the AbilityOne Program. Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), this rule of agency organization, procedure and practice is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. The Committee also finds that the 30-day delay in effectiveness, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), is inapplicable because this rule is not a substantive rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The Committee has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of OMB.

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 51-1

Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled amends 41 CFR Part 51-1 as set forth below:

41 CFR PART 51-1—GENERAL1. The authority for 41 CFR part 51-1 continues to read as follows:Authority:

56 FR 48976, Sept. 26, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 51-1.3 by amending the heading of the definition “Other severely handicapped and severely handicapped individuals” by removing the word “handicapped” and adding the word “disabled” in its place, and adding the definition “Severely disabled individual; Severe disability; Significantly disabled individual; Significant disability” to read as follows:§ 51-1.3Definitions.

Severely disabled individual; Severe disability; Significantly disabled individual; Significant disability;are interchangeable or synonymous terms used within the AbilityOne Program to describe persons with severe disabilities who qualify to participate in the AbilityOne Program.

III. Approval Authority

The Executive Director of the Committee has approved the publication of this notice and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register.

This document publishes the final data on thefts of model year (MY) 2010 passenger motor vehicles that occurred in calendar year (CY) 2010. The final 2010 theft data indicated a decrease in the vehicle theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2010. The final theft rate for MY 2010 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2010 is 1.17 thefts per thousand vehicles, a decrease of 12.03 percent from the rate of 1.33 thefts per thousand in 2009. Publication of these data fulfills NHTSA's statutory obligation to periodically obtain accurate and timely theft data and publish the information for review and comment.

NHTSA administers a program for reducing motor vehicle theft. The central feature of this program is the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR part 541. The standard specifies performance requirements for inscribing and affixing vehicle identification numbers (VINs) onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts of high-theft lines of passenger motor vehicles.

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely theft data and publish the data for review and comment. To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data annually beginning with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill the § 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document reports the final theft data for CY 2010, the most recent calendar year for which data are available.

In calculating the 2010 theft rates, NHTSA followed the same procedures it used in calculating the MY 2009 theft rates. (For 2009 theft data calculations, see 76 FR 65610, October 24, 2011). As in all previous reports, NHTSA's data were based on information provided to NHTSA by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a government system that receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies and other law enforcement authorities throughout the United States. The NCIC data also include reported thefts of self-insured and uninsured vehicles, not all of which are reported to other data sources.

The 2010 theft rate for each vehicle line was calculated by dividing the number of reported thefts of MY 2010 vehicles of that line stolen during calendar year 2010 by the total number of vehicles in that line manufactured for MY 2010, as reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The final 2010 theft data show a decrease in the vehicle theft rate when compared to the theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2009. The final theft rate for MY 2010 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2010 decreased to 1.17thefts per thousand vehicles produced, a decrease of 12.03 percent from the rate of 1.33 thefts per thousand vehicles experienced by MY 2009 vehicles in CY 2009. A similar decreasing trend in vehicle thefts was reported in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) 2010 Uniform Crime Report showing a 7.4% reduction in motor vehicle thefts (automobiles, trucks, buses and other vehicles) from 2009 to 2010.

For MY 2010 vehicles, out of a total of 225 vehicle lines, three lines had a theft rate higher than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the established median theft rate for MYs 1990/1991. (See 59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994). Of the three vehicle lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826, three are passenger car lines, none are multipurpose passenger vehicle lines, and none are light-duty truck lines.

NHTSA's data show that the MY 2010 theft rate reduction is consistent with the general decreasing trend of theft rates over the past 17 years as indicated by Figure 1. The agency believes that the theft rate reduction is the result of several factors including the increased use of standard antitheft devices (i.e., immobilizers) and vehicle parts marking as well as the effectiveness of combined measures used by Federal agencies, law enforcement, vehicle manufacturers and the insurance industry to help combat vehicle theft.

ER21SE12.000

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, NHTSA published the preliminary theft rates for CY 2010 passenger motor vehicles in theFederal Register(77 FR 38025). The agency tentatively ranked each of the MY 2010 vehicle lines in descending order of theft rate. The public was requested to comment on the accuracy of the data and to provide final production figures for individual vehicle lines. The agency did not receive any comments from the public to make adjustments to its data. As a result, the final theft rates and rankings of vehicle lines did not change from those published in the June 2012 notice.

The following list represents NHTSA's final calculation of theft rates for all 2010 passenger motor vehicle lines. This list is intended to inform the public of calendar year 2010 motor vehicle thefts of model year 2010 vehicles and does not have any effect on the obligations of regulated parties under 49 U.S.C. chapter 331, Theft Prevention.

Final Report of Theft Rates for Model Year 2010 Passenger Motor Vehicles Stolen in Calendar Year 2010ManufacturerMake/model

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Temporary rule; closure.

SUMMARY:

NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the C season allowance of the 2012 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 620 in the GOA.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The C season allowance of the 2012 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 7,282 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby decreases the C season pollock allowance by 220 mt to reflect the total amount of pollock TAC that has been caught prior to the C season in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised C season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 7,062 mt (7,282 mt minus 220 mt).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the C season allowance of the 2012 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 7,012 mt and is setting aside the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

Classification

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as itwould prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 17, 2012.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

On January 20, 2011, FEMA published a proposed rulemaking at 76 FR 3590, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Hoke County, North Carolina. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking and intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations in theFederal Registerand a notice in the affected community's local newspaper following issuance of a revised preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Insurance Study report.

On July 22, 2011, FEMA published a proposed rulemaking at 76 FR 43968, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in the Unincorporated Areas of Highlands County, Florida. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking and intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations in theFederal Registerfollowed by a notice in the affected community's local newspaper in the near future.

You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0103, by any one of the following methods:

•Electronic Submission:Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portalwww.regulations.gov.To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0103 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.

Instructions:Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing onwww.regulations.govwithout change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

Amendment 11 to the MSB FMP (76 FR 68642, November 7, 2011) implemented a three tiered mackerel limited access program in which all qualifiers were required to have possessed a valid permit on March 21, 2007. A vessel must have landed at least 400,000 lb (181.44 mt) in any one year 1997-2005 to qualify for a Tier 1 permit; at least 100,000 lb (45.36 mt) in any one year March 1, 1994-December 31, 2005, to qualify for a Tier 2 permit; or at least 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) in any one year March 1, 1994-December 31, 2005, to qualify for a Tier 3 permit. Trip limits for each tier are established annually through the specification process. The trip limits approved for 2012 are unlimited for Tier 1; 135,000 lb (61.23 mt) for Tier 2; and 100,000 lb (45.36 mt) for Tier 3.

The tiered limited access program went into effect on March 1, 2012, and permit applications are being accepted through February 28, 2013. Vessel owners whose vessels are issued Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits (the tiers with the highest access) are required to obtain a certification of the capacity of the vessel's fish hold(s). The final rule implementing Amendment 11 provided that a fish hold capacity certification must be made by an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors, or by an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors. Vessel owners who have received a certification of their vessel's fish hold capacity by the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures also meet the fish hold capacity requirement. Vessel owners are required to submit documentation in support of their vessel's certified fish hold capacity to NMFS by December 31, 2012, or their first vessel replacement or upgrade, whichever comes first. The certified fish hold capacity will be considered a new baseline specification to control future vessel upgrades for vessels with Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits. In addition to limiting vessel upgrades to 10 percent above the baseline gross registered tonnage, net tonnage, and length overall and 20 percent above the baseline horsepower, future upgrades to Tier 1 and 2 mackerel permits will be limited to 10 percent above the certified baseline fish hold capacity. Council staff and the Council developed the original credentialing requirements through background research, advisory panel meetings, input from several marine surveyors in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, and input during several rounds of public comment on the amendment. Since publication of the final rule for Amendment 11, two marine professionals commented that additional qualified individuals or entities should be approved to complete fish hold capacity certifications. Industry representatives suggested that individuals other than those with the credentials approved in Amendment 11 may be qualified to complete fish hold capacity certifications. To address this concern, the Council adopted Framework 5 on April 12, 2012, and submitted it to NMFS on April 18, 2012, for review and approval.

This action proposes revising the fish hold capacity certification requirement to allow additional individuals or entities beyond those with credentials approved in Amendment 11 to complete fish hold capacity certifications. This framework action would expand the range of individuals and entities that are approved to complete hold capacity certifications and allow them also to be completed by employees or agents of a classification society approved by the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3316(c), Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures, a professionally-licensed and/or registered Marine Engineer, or a Naval Architect with a professional engineer license. NMFS invites the public to comment on whether this expanded list is too broad or there are other individuals who should be added to this list because they have credentials reflecting their competence to make a fish hold certification of which NMFS is currently unaware. In addition, we invite public comment on whether there is a need for additional mechanisms to ensure that individuals and/or entities are qualified to perform fish hold capacity certifications. This list could be expanded in the final rule to include such individuals if NMFS determines it has a reasonable basis upon which to assess an individual's competence to make a fish hold certification. This action also proposes extending the date that vessels are required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by one year. Due to a delay in rulemaking, vessels with mackerel Tier 1 and 2 permits would be required to submit fish hold capacity measurements by December 31, 2013, instead of December 31, 2012.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provision of theMagnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the reasons described below, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this framework action and none has been prepared.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial fishing sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $4.0 million. Party/charter small businesses are included in NAICS code 487210 and are defined as a firm with gross receipts of up to $7 million. Depending on the year, all 74 of the vessels required to complete hold certifications may qualify as small businesses, or a few may be above the 4.0 million dollar threshold depending on their landings in a given year. However, this action will not negatively impact any fishery participants, regardless of size.

Amendment 11 analyzed the impacts from requiring Tier 1 and 2 mackerel vessels to obtain fish hold capacity measurements from an individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors, from an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors, or with certification by the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures. This action proposes to broaden the scope of individuals who are approved to complete the fish hold capacity measurement, but does not have any impact on small entities outside of the scope of those analyzed in Amendment 11. Although vessel owners will have more flexibility for obtaining a fish hold capacity measurement completed by a qualified individual under this action, this action is not expected to result in any change in the cost associated with obtaining the certification.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801et seq.

2. In § 648.4, paragraph (a)(5) (iii)(H)(1) is revised to read as follows:

§ 648.4Vessel permits.

(a) * * *

(5) * * *

(iii) * * *

(H)Vessel baseline specification.(1) In addition to the baseline specifications specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(H) of this section, the volumetric fish hold capacity of a vessel at the time it was initially issued a Tier 1 or Tier 2 limited access mackerel permit will be considered a baseline specification. The fish hold capacity measurement must be certified by one of the following qualified individuals or entities: An individual credentialed as a Certified Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS); an individual credentialed as an Accredited Marine Surveyor with a fishing specialty by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS); employees or agents of a classification society approved by the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3316(c); the Maine State Sealer of Weights and Measures; a professionally-licensed and/or registered Marine Engineer; or a Naval Architect with a professional engineer license. Owners whose vessels qualify for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 mackerel permit must submit a certified fish hold capacity measurement to NMFS by December 31, 2013, or with the first vessel replacement application after a vessel qualifies for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 mackerel permit, whichever is sooner. The fish hold capacity measurement submitted to NMFS as required in this paragraph (a)(5)(iii) must include a signed certification by the individual or entity that completed the measurement, specifying how they meet the definition of a qualified individual or entity.

The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES:

To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2012.

The Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the collection of data concerning the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to be conducted in conjunction with the February, March, and April CPS. The Census Bureau has conducted this supplement annually for over 50 years. The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics sponsor this supplement.

In the ASEC, we collect information on work experience, personal income, noncash benefits, health insurance coverage, and migration. The work experience items in the ASEC provide a unique measure of the dynamic nature of the labor force as viewed over a one-year period. These items produce statistics that show movements in and out of the labor force by measuring the number of periods of unemployment experienced by people, the number of different employers worked for during the year, the principal reasons for unemployment, and part-/full-time attachment to the labor force. We can make indirect measurements of discouraged workers and others with a casual attachment to the labor market.

The income data from the ASEC are used by social planners, economists, government officials, and market researchers to gauge the economic well-being of the country as a whole and selected population groups of interest. Government planners and researchers use these data to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of various assistance programs. Market researchers use these data to identify and isolate potential customers. Social planners use these data to forecast economic conditions and to identify special groups that seem to be especially sensitive to economic fluctuations. Economists use ASEC data to determine the effects of various economic forces, such as inflation, recession, recovery, and so on, and their differential effects on various population groups.

A prime statistic of interest is the classification of people in poverty and how this measurement has changed over time for various groups. Researchers evaluate ASEC income data not only to determine poverty levels but also to determine whether government programs are reaching eligible households.

The ASEC also contains questions related to: (1) Medical expenditures; (2) presence and cost of a mortgage on property; (3) child support payments; and (4) amount of child care assistance received. These questions enable analysts and policymakers to obtain better estimates of family and household income, and more precisely gauge poverty status.

The U.S. Census Bureau continues to follow the 1999 mandate from Congress regarding passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or Title XXI. The mandate increased the sample size for the CPS, and specifically the ASEC, to a level achieving estimates that are more reliable for the number of individuals participating in this program at the state level. Since 2000, the ASEC is conducted in February, March, and April, rather than only in March, to achieve the increase in sample size.

II. Method of Collection

The ASEC information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular February, March and April CPS interviewing. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.

III. Data

OMB Control Number:0607-0354.

Form Number:There are no forms. We conduct all interviewing on computers.

Type of Review:Regular submission.

Affected Public:Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents:78,000.

Estimated Time per Response:25 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:32,500.

Estimated Total Annual Cost:There are no costs to the respondents other than their time to answer the CPS questions.

Respondent's Obligation:Voluntary.

Legal Authority:

Title 13, United States Code, Section 182; and Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1-9.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize theburden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Census Bureau announces a prize competition under Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2011, Public Law 111-358 (2011) to create a statistical model to predict the census mail return rate of small area geographic units based on their demographic characteristics. TheSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection of this notice provides more detailed information about the competition.

DATES:

Competition began on August 31, 2012, and ends on November 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Please visitwww.kaggle.comfor further information on the competition and eligibility. All questions regarding the competition may be sent to:census.return.rate.challenge@census.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Census Bureau announces a prize competition under Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2011, Public Law 111-358 (2011) to create a statistical model to predict the census mail return rate of small area geographic units based on their demographic characteristics. Census and survey participation rates vary considerably across geographic areas. For example, 2010 Census mail-form return rates varied across states from a high of 82 percent to a low of 65 percent. The causes of these differences in participation rates are many, but these causes have been found to be related to population and housing characteristics. Subpopulations may differ in their lifestyles and their attitudes toward census participation, and Census planners need to develop appropriate strategies to contact and gain respondent cooperation for timely and efficient data collection.

This competition is intended to develop a statistical model to predict census mail return rates at the Census block group level of geography. The Census Bureau will use this model for planning purposes for the decennial census and for demographic sample surveys. The model-based estimates of predicted mail return will be publicly released in a later version of the Census “planning database” containing updated demographic data.

The Census Bureau announced this competition on their public Web site on August 31, 2012. This notice is intended to formally announce the competition in theFederal Register.

Competition Details

Subject of the competition.The objective of this competition is to create the best statistical model to predict census mail return rates of block group areas using the demographic variables in the Census planning database, a file of selected variables from the 2010 Census and 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.

Participants are encouraged to develop and evaluate different statistical approaches to propose the best predictive model for geographic units. The intent is to improve our current predictive analytics.

The challenge will be hosted atwww.kaggle.com(“Web site”), an online platform for predictive modeling competitions.

Amount of the prize.The total prize amount to be awarded through this competition is $25,000.

Competition Rules

(1)Basis on which the winner will be selected.The winner(s) of this competition will be the entrant(s) who submits the statistical model that is judged by a panel of experts external to the Census Bureau to be the best predictive model of census mail return rate at the block group level of geography, in accordance withJudge and Judging Procedures.

(a) The 2010 Census mail form return rate will be used as the dependent measure in the model. Units of analysis are census block groups as defined by Census.

(b) The Census Return Rate Predictive Model is to be developed from the variables in our newly updated planning database, which includes selected 2010 Census and ACS 5-year estimates of characteristics that Census experience and the survey literature have found to be associated with enumeration difficulty.

(c) Participants can propose inclusion of additional variables not on the planning database as long as they meet the following criteria:

(i) Administrative data, such as school enrollment or other compiled data, publically available at no cost, and

(ii) The data are not proprietary information, such as commercial telephone and household characteristics lists, which require purchase from a vendor.

Participants are encouraged to notify the Census Bureau of additional data sources to be used before completion of the model to assure compliance with the criteria.

(d) The models will be evaluated as outlined in theJudge and Judging Procedures. Please refer to the Web site for additional details.

(e) Entry materials will include the model documentation, including the prediction equation, a description of the methodology used to create the prediction equation, and algorithm/code (e.g., R/Matlab/Python/SAS/etc.) to create the prediction equation. The documentation will provide a thorough understanding of the methods, and allow for replication in the future.

(c) Participants may be individuals or teams. For purposes of this Notice, “Entrant” or “Entrants” refers to individual participants and each individual participating as a member of a team.

(3)To be eligible to win a prize under this competition, an individual or entity:

(a) Must have agreed to the rules of this competition;

(b) Are either (a) in the case of an entity, incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, or (b) in the case of an individual, a citizen or permanent resident of the United States who are 18 years or older;

(c) Must not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of employment;

(d) Must assume risks, agree to indemnify, and waive claims against theFederal government and its related entities; and

(e) Anyone whose job duties or official work capacity are closely related to the statistical model that is the subject of the competition is not eligible.

(4)Procedure for obtaining additional information:

(a) The Census Bureau will monitor questions or discussion posted on the Kaggle.com competition site.

(a) Until the last day of the competition, Entrants' scores and ranks on the Public Leaderboard on the Kaggle Web site will be calculated from the predicted results in an Entrants' submission and the ground truth of a validation dataset. At the close of the competition, the scores and associated ranks on the Public Leaderboard will be calculated from the predicted results and ground truth in the private testing dataset to confirm accuracy. The top-3 Entrant(s), based on the results using the private testing database, will be declared as tentative Prize Winners.

(b) A week before the end of the competition, there will be a visualization competition. The goal of this competition will be to create insightful visualizations from the data that was provided for the predictive modeling competition. There will be a single winner who will be chosen by Kaggle community vote on the Web site. This winner of the visualization competition will receive one thousand dollars as a prize.

(c) The evaluation metric that forms the basis for the Leaderboard scores will be displayed on the Web site. Because of variability in block group population counts, the evaluation metric may be weighted by the 2010 Census population block group count.

(d) As a condition of receipt of the prize, the winner(s) must deliver the algorithm's code and documentation to the Census Bureau. The source code must contain a description of resources required to build and run the algorithm. The individual winner, or each individual on a team should the winner be a team Entrant, will be required to complete, sign and return a Declaration of Eligibility, Non-Exclusive License, and Release form.

(e) The prize may be delivered by U.S. mail or electronically. To facilitate electronic delivery, the winner will need to submit financial account information sufficient to support electronic transfer of the prize.

(f) Regardless of the method of delivering the prize money, the Entrant(s) may be subject to Federal and/or state income taxation. Entrant(s) may be required to fill out tax and related forms before receiving the prize. Kaggle will provide necessary forms at the end of the challenge to the winning Entrants.

(g) For more information on judging and judging procedures, please refer tohttp://www.kaggle.com/c/us-census-challenge/details/rules.

(6)Intellectual property/Copyright.Each Entrant warrants, upon submitting an entry, that he or she is the sole owner of the submission, and that the submission is wholly original with the Entrant and does not infringe on any copyright or other rights of any third party of which the Entrant is aware. Each Entrant (a) grants to Census Bureau and its designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, transferable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license to use, not use, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works of, publicly-perform, publicly-display, digitally-perform, make, have made, sell, offer for sale and import each Entry and the algorithm used to produce the Entry, in any media now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without further approval by or payment to Entrant (the “License”) and (b) that he/she/it has the unrestricted right to grant the License.

(8)General.In the Census Bureau's sole discretion, the Census Bureau may cancel, suspend, and/or modify the competition, in whole or part, for any reason. By participating in this competition, the Entrant(s) fully and unconditionally agrees to abide by all competition rules stated in this Notice and found atwww.kaggle.com.

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas,the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “* * * the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

Whereas,the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (the Grantee) has made application to the Board (FTZ Docket 49-2011, filed 07/26/11) requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone in Brunswick, Maine, adjacent to the Portland U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry;

Whereas,notice inviting public comment has been given in theFederal Register(76 FR 45772, 08/01/11) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

Whereas,the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest;

Now, therefore,the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 282, as described in the application, and subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. For information on the net subsidy for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu), Hyundai HYSCO Ltd. (HYSCO), and Pohang Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (POSCO), for the companies reviewed, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.1

On August 17, 1993, the Department published in theFederal Registerthe CVD order on CORE from Korea.2On August 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order.3

On August 31, 2011, we received timely requests for review of the countervailing duty order from HYSCO. We also received a timely request for review of Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO, from United States Steel Corporation, petitioner. On October 3, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the CVD order on CORE from Korea covering the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.4

On October 5, 2011, the Department issued the initial questionnaire to Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO, and the Government of Korea (GOK). On November 23, 2011, November 28, 2011, November 29, 2011, and November 30, 2011, the Department received questionnaire responses from HYSCO, Dongbu, POSCO, and the GOK, respectively. On March 2, 2012, July 16, 2012, and July 24, 2012 the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to HYSCO. On March 30, 2012, July 20, 2012, and August 7, 2012, the Department received supplemental questionnaire responses from HYSCO.

On March 22, 2012, the Department published in theFederal Registeran extension of its preliminary results of the instant administrative review.5On July 18, 2011, the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to the GOK. On August 4, 2011 the Department received the supplemental questionnaire response for the GOK.

On December 20, 2011, petitioner submitted new subsidy allegations against Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO. On April 24, 2012, the Department initiated an investigation of the new subsidies allegations against Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO.6On April 25, 2012, and April 27, 2012, we issued new subsidies questionnaire to Dongbu and POSCO, respectively. On May 7, 2012, we issued new subsidy questionnaires to HYSCO and the GOK. On May 18, 2012, the Department received a response from POSCO. On May 25, 2012 and June 19, 2012, the Department received responses from HYSCO and Dongbu. The Department issued additional questionnaires to HYSCO regarding the new subsidy allegations on July 16, 2012 and July 24, 2012, and received responses from HYSCO on July 20, 2012, and August 2, 2012. The Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to the GOK regarding the new subsidy allegations on July 24, 2012, and August 3, 2012, and received responses from the GOK on August 7, 2012, and August 15, 2012. The Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Dongbu regarding the new subsidy allegations on July 17, 2012, and received Dongbu's response on July 27, 2012.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to this review are Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO.

Affiliated Companies

In the present administrative review, record evidence indicates that Pohang Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) is a majority-owned production facility of POSCO. Under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), if the firm that received a subsidy is a holding company, including a parent company with its own operations, the Department will attribute the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the holding company and its subsidiaries. Thus, we attributed subsidies received by POCOS to POSCO and its subsidiaries, net of intra-company sales. Dongbu reported that it is the only member of the Dongbu group in Korea that was involved with the sale of subject merchandise to the United States. HYSCO reported that it is a member of the Hyundai Motor Group and is affiliated with members of that group.7Under 19 CFR Section 351.525(b)(6)(vi), if an input supplier and a downstream producer are cross-owned, and the production of the input product is primarily dedicated to production of the downstream product, the Department will attribute the subsidies received by the input producer to the combined sales of the input and downstream products produced by both corporations net of intra-company sales. HYSCO reported that there are no companies that own HYSCO shares which meet the standard for cross-ownership in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), and all of the companies in which HYSCO owns the majority of shares are located outside of Korea.Id.

Products covered by this order are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable inthe Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7210.30.0000, 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.60.0000, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.9030, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.30.15.0000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 7217.39.5000, 7217.90.1000 and 7217.90.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Subsidies Valuation InformationA. Benchmarks for Short-Term Financing

For those programs requiring the application of a won-denominated, short-term interest rate benchmark, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv), we used as our benchmark the company-specific weighted-average interest rate for commercial won-denominated loans outstanding during the POR. This approach is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i) and the Department's practice.8

During the POR, HYSCO had outstanding countervailable long-term won-denominated loans from government-owned banks and Korean commercial banks. We used the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to respondents' countervailable long-term loans obtained through 2009:

(1) For countervailable, won-denominated long-term loans, we used, where available, the company-specific interest rates on the company's comparable commercial, won-denominated loans. If such loans were not available, we used, where available, the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds, as we have determined that the GOK did not control the Korean domestic bond market after 1991.9The use of a corporate bond rate as a long-term benchmark interest rate is consistent with the approach the Department has taken in several prior Korean CVD proceedings.10Specifically, in those cases, we determined that, absent company-specific, commercial long-term loan interest rates, the won-denominated corporate bond rate is the best indicator of the commercial long-term borrowing rates for won-denominated loans in Korea because it is widely accepted as the market rate in Korea.11Where company-specific rates were not available, we used the national average of the yields on three -year, won-denominated corporate bonds, as reported by the Bank of Korea (BOK). This approach is consistent with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii) and our practice.12

12See, e.g.,CORE from Korea 2006 Decision Memorandum at “Benchmark for Long Term Loans.”

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i), our benchmarks take into consideration the structure of the government-provided loans. For countervailable fixed-rate loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used benchmark rates issued in the same year that the government loans were issued.

Average Useful Life

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry under examination and that the difference between the company-specific and/or country-wide AUL and the AUL from the IRS tables is significant. According to the IRS tables, the AUL of the steel industry is 15 years. No interested party challenged the 15-year AUL derived from the IRS tables. Thus, in this review, we have allocated, where applicable, all of the non-recurring subsidies provided to the producers/exporters of subject merchandise over a 15-year AUL.

I. Programs Determined To Be CountervailableA. Promotion of Specialized Enterprises for Parts and Materials

Under the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises for Parts and Materials (Promotion of Specialized Enterprises Act), the GOK shares the costs of research and development (R&D) projects with companies or research institutions. The goal of the program is to support technology development for core parts and materials necessary for technological innovation and improvement in competitiveness.13The program is administered by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE) and Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT).14

In accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises Act, MKE prepares a base plan and a yearly execution plan for the development of the parts and materials industry.15Under the execution plan, MKE announces to the public a detailed business plan for the development of parts and materials technology.16This business plan includes support areas, qualifications, and the application process.17According to the GOK, any person or company can participate in the program by preparing an R&D business plan that conforms with the requirements set forth in the MKE business plan.18The completed application must then be submitted to KEIT, which evaluates the application and selects the projects eligible forgovernment support.19After the selected application is finally approved by MKE, MKE and the participating companies enter into an R&D agreement and then MKE provides the grant.20

15SeeGOK's November QR at Exhibit P-1.

16Id.at 2.

17Id.

18Id.

19Id.

20Id.at 3.

R&D project costs are shared by the GOK and companies or research institutions as follows: (1) When the group of companies involved in the research is made up of a ratio above two-thirds small to medium-sized companies, the GOK provides a grant up to three-fourths of the project cost; (2) When the group of companies involved in the research is made up of a ratio below two-thirds small to medium-sized companies, the GOK provides a grant up to one-half of the project cost.21

21SeeGOK's November QR, Exhibit P-1.

Upon completion of the project, if the GOK evaluates the project as “successful”, the participating companies must repay 40 percent of the R&D grant to the GOK over five years.22However, if the project is evaluated by the GOK as “not successful”, the company does not have to repay any of the grant amount to the GOK.23

22SeeGOK's November QR, Exhibit P-1 at 2.

23Id.

In the final results of administrative review of the CVD order on CORE From Korea covering the period January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, the Department determined that the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises Act wasde jurespecific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act, because it is expressly limited to (1) enterprises specializing in components and materials and (2) enterprises specializing in development of technology for components and materials.24No information on the record of this review leads us to reconsider that determination and, thus, we continue to find, preliminarily, that this program isde jurespecific within the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. We also preliminarily find that a financial contribution was provided within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act because the GOK's payments constitute a direct transfer of funds.25

24See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,76 FR 3613 (January 20, 2011) (Final Results of CORE from Korea 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (CORE 2008 Decision Memorandum) at “The Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises for Parts and Materials.”

HYSCO reported that during the POR, it was involved in one R&D project under this program.SeeHYSCO's November QR at 17. In theFinal Results of CORE From Korea 2008,we treated a portion of the subsidy that does not have to be repaid as a grant and the remaining portion of the subsidy that may have to be repaid as a long-term, interest-free contingent liability loan.26This approach is consistent with the Department's regulation and practice.27We have adopted the same approach in these preliminary results.

26See Final Results of CORE from Korea 2008,76 FR at 3613 and CORE 2008 Decision Memorandum at “The Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Specialized Enterprises for Parts and Materials.”

To determine the benefit from the GOK funds HYSCO received under the Specialized Enterprises Act program, we calculated the GOK's contribution for the assistance that was apportioned to HYSCO.See19 CFR 351.504(a). As described immediately above, we treated a portion of this benefit as a grant. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we determined whether to allocate the non-recurring benefit from the grants over a 15-year AUL by dividing the GOK-approved grant amount by the company's total sales in the year of approval. Because the approved amount was less than 0.5 percent of the company's total sales, we expensed the grant to the year of receipt, i.e., to 2010, the POR in this review.

With respect to the portion of the subsidy that we are treating as a long-term, interest-free contingent liability loan, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1) for the reasons described above, we find the benefit to be equal to the interest that HYSCO would have paid during the POR had it borrowed the full amount of the contingent liability loan during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1), we used a long-term interest rate as our benchmark to calculate the benefit of a contingent liability interest-free loan because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends (i.e.,the completion of the R&D project) occurs at a point in time more than one year after the date in which the grant was received. Specifically, we used the long-term benchmark interest rates as described in the “Subsidies Valuation” section of these preliminary results.

To calculate the total net subsidy amount for this program, we summed the benefits provided under this program. Next, to calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the portion of the benefit allocated to the POR by HYSCO's total f.o.b. sales for 2010.28On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate under this program to be 0.02 percentad valoremfor HYSCO.

28See19 CFR 351.525(b)(3).

B. Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA) Article 26

Under RSTA Article 26, a company can claim a tax credit equal to a certain percentage of its investments in its facilities.29According to the GOK, the goal of this program is to boost general national economic activity.30In its response to the Department's October 5, 2011, questionnaire, the GOK submitted information which indicated that these tax credits are expressly limited to a corporation's investments in facilities located outside the “Overcrowding Control Region” of the Seoul Metropolitan Area (“SMA”).31Specifically, the GOK provided a complete translation of Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the RSTA in its November QR eligibility for the program is limited to investments made outside the Overcrowding Control Region of the SMA.32Moreover, the GOK also stated that corporate investments in facilities located within the Overcrowding Control Region of the SMA are not eligible for credits under this tax program.33

29SeeGOK's November QR at Exhibit B-3.

30Id.

31Id.at Exhibit B-4.

32Id.

33Id.at Exhibit B-3.

Because information provided by the GOK indicates that the tax credit under this program is limited by law to enterprises or industries within a designated geographical region within the jurisdiction of the authority providing the subsidy, we preliminarily find that this program is regionally specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).34The tax credit is a financial contribution in the form of revenue foregone by the government within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, which provides a benefit to the recipient equal to the difference between the taxes actually paid and the taxes otherwise payable inthe absence of this program within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). These findings are consistent with the determinations inBottom Mount Refrigerators From Korea,and2009 Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO Ltd.35

34See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand,66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Provision of Electricity for Less than Adequate Remuneration” (where eligibility for a program was limited to users outside the Bangkok metropolitan area, we found the subsidy to be regionally specific under section 771(5(a)(D)(iv) of the Act).

HYSCO and POSCO indicated that their companies used RSTA Article 26 credits during the 2010 POR.36

36SeeHYSCO's November QR at 10 and Exhibit B-3 and POSCO's November 29, 2011 QR at 12 and Exhibits B-2, B-3, and B-4.

To calculate the subsidy rate for HYSCO and POSCO during the POR, we divided each company's benefit, which is the tax credit claimed by the company under this program in its tax return filed in 2010, by the company's total sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy provided under this program to be 0.06 percentad valoremfor HYSCO and 0.08 percentad valoremfor POSCO.

Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the GOK permitted companies that made an initial public offering between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to revalue their assets at a rate higher than the 25 percent required of most other companies under the Asset Revaluation Act. The Department has previously found this program to be countervailable. For example, in theCTL Plate Investigation,the Department determined that this program wasde factospecific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), because the actual recipients of the subsidy were limited in number and the basic metal industry was a dominant user of this program.37We also determined that a financial contribution was provided in the form of tax revenue foregone pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act.38The Department further determined that a benefit was conferred within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act on those companies that were able to revalue their assets under TERCL Article 56(2) because the revaluation resulted in participants paying lower taxes than they would otherwise pay absent the program.Id.No new information or evidence of changed circumstances was presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program.

The benefit from this program is the difference that the revaluation of depreciable assets has on a company's tax liability each year. Evidence on the record indicates that, in 1989, POSCO made an asset revaluation that increased its depreciation expense. To calculate the benefit to POSCO, we took the additional depreciation listed in the tax return filed during the POR, which resulted from the company's asset revaluation, and multiplied that amount by the tax rate applicable to that tax return. We then divided the resulting benefit by POSCO's total free on board (f.o.b.) sales.See19 CFR 351.525(b)(3). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.01 percentad valoremfor POSCO. Dongbu and HYSCO did not use this program during the POR.

D. Exemption of VAT on Imports of Anthracite Coal

Under Article 106 of Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA), imports of anthracite coal are exempt from the value added tax (VAT). In theCold-Rolled Investigation,we determined that the program isde jurespecific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Because the GOK allows for only a few items to be exempt from VAT, the items allowed to be imported without paying VAT are limited.39We also determined that the VAT exemptions under the program constitute a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, as the GOK is not collecting revenue otherwise due, and that the exemptions confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act equal to the amount of the VAT that would have otherwise been paid if not for the exemption. No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties was presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Therefore, we preliminarily continue to find that this program isde jurespecific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because it is limited, constitutes a financial contribution in the form of forgone revenue under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, and confers a benefit in the amount of the revenue foregone within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.

39SeeCold-Rolled Decision Memorandum at “Exemption of VAT on Imports of Anthracite Coal.”

Dongbu and HYSCO reported that their companies did not use the program during the POR.40POSCO imported anthracite coal during the POR and, therefore, received a benefit in the amount of the VAT that it should have otherwise paid if not for the exemption. To determine POSCO's benefit from the VAT exemption on these imports, we calculated the amount of VAT that would have been due absent the program on the total value of anthracite coal POSCO imported during the POR. We then divided the amount of this tax benefit by POSCO's total f.o.b. sales. Based on this methodology, we preliminarily determine the POSCO received a countervailable subsidy of 0.07 percentad valorem.

40SeeHSYCO's November QR at 14 and Dongbu's November 28, 2011, questionnaire response at 14.

E. Other Subsidies Related to Operations at Asan Bay: Provision of Land and Exemption of Port Fees Under Harbor Act1. Provision of Land

As explained in theCold-Rolled Investigation,the GOK's overall development plan is published every 10 years and describes the nationwide land development goals and plans for the balanced development of the country. Under these plans, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCAT) prepares and updates its Asan Bay Area Broad Development Plan.41The Korea Land Development Corporation (Koland) is a government investment corporation that is responsible for purchasing, developing, and selling land in the industrial sites.42

In theCold-Rolled Investigation,we verified that the GOK, in setting the price per square meter for land at the Kodai Industrial Estate, removed the 10 percent profit component from the pricecharged to Dongbu.43In theCold-Rolled Investigation,we further explained that companies purchasing land at Asan Bay must make payments on the purchase and development of the land before the final settlement. However, in the case of Dongbu, we found that the GOK provided an adjustment to Dongbu's final payment to account for “interest earned” by the company for the pre-payments.44HYSCO and POSCO reported that their companies did not use this program.45

43Id.

44Id.

45SeeHYSCO's November QR at 15 and POSCO's November QR at 17.

In theCold-Rolled Investigation,we determined that the price discount and the adjustment of Dongbu's final payment to account for “interest earned” by the company on its pre-payments were countervailable subsidies. Specifically, the Department determined that they were specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, as they were limited to Dongbu.46Further, the Department found the price discount and the price adjustment for “interest earned” constituted financial contributions in the form of grants under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and conferred benefits in the amount of grants within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act.Id.No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties was presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Therefore, we preliminarily continue to find that this program isde factospecific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because it is limited to Dongbu, constitutes a financial contribution in the form of grants under sections 771(5)(D)(i), and confers a benefit in the amount of the price discount and the price adjustment within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.

46Id.

Consistent with theCold-Rolled Investigation,we have treated the land price discount and the interest earned refund as non-recurring subsidies.47In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), because the grant amounts were more than 0.5 percent of the company's total sales in the year of receipt, we applied the Department's standard grant methodology, as described under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(1), and allocated the subsidies over a 15-year allocation period.Seethe “Average Useful Life” section above. To calculate the benefit from these grants, we used as our discount rate the rates described above in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section. We then summed the benefits received by Dongbu during the POR. We calculated the net subsidy rate by dividing the total benefit attributable to the POR by Dongbu's total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we determine a net countervailable subsidy rate for Dongbu of 0.09 percentad valoremfor the POR.

47Id.

2. Exemption of Port Fees Under the Harbor Act

Under the Harbor Act, companies are allowed to construct infrastructure facilities at Korean ports; however, these facilities must be deeded back to the government. Because the ownership of these facilities reverts to the government, the government compensates private parties for the construction of these infrastructure facilities. Because a company must transfer to the government its infrastructure investment, under the Harbor Act, the GOK grants the company free usage of the facility and the right to collect fees from other users of the facility for a limited period of time. Once a company has recovered its cost of constructing the infrastructure, the company must pay the same usage fees as other users of the infrastructure.

In theCold-Rolled Investigation,the Department found that Dongbu received free use of harbor facilities at Asan Bay based upon both its construction of a port facility as well as a road that the company built from its plant to its port.48The Department also determined that Dongbu received an exemption of harbor fees for a period of almost 70 years under this program.49

In theCold-Rolled Investigation,the Department found the exemption from the fees to be a countervailable subsidy. No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties was presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Thus, we preliminarily continue to find that the program is countervailable and is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the excessive exemption period of 70 years is limited to Dongbu. Moreover, we preliminarily determine that the GOK is foregoing revenue that it would otherwise collect by allowing Dongbu to be exempt from port charges for up to 70 years and, thus, the program constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Further, we preliminarily determine that the exemptions confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of the port charges that were not collected.

In theCold-Rolled Investigation,the Department treated the program as a recurring subsidy and determined that the benefit is equal to the average yearly amount of harbor fee exemptions provided to Dongbu.50For purposes of these preliminary results, we have employed the same benefit calculation. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the average yearly amount of exemptions by Dongbu's total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Dongbu's net subsidy rate under this program is 0.02 percentad valorem.

50Id.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer a Benefit During the PORA. Research and Development Grants Under the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (ITIPA)

The GOK's Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act program is designed to foster future new industries and enhance the competitiveness of primary industries through fundamental technology development.51The program is administered by MKE and the Korean Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT).52

Pursuant to Article 11 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act, KEIT prepares a basic plan for the development of technology, on behalf of MKE.54This plan includes the R&D projects that are eligible, describes the application process, and designates the supporting documentation required.55The plan is announced to the public.56According tothe GOK, any person who wishes to participate in the program prepares an R&D business plan that meets the requirements set forth in the basic plan and then submits the application to the GOK's Application Review Committee, which then evaluates the application to determine if it conforms to the terms and conditions set forth in the basic plan.57If the application is approved, MKE and the company enter into an R&D agreement and then MKE provides the grant.58

54Id.

55Id.

56Id.

57Id.

58Id.

The costs of the R&D projects under this program are shared by the company (or research institution) and the GOK.59Specifically, the grant ratio for project costs are as follows: (1) For projects with one small/medium-sized enterprise (SME), the GOK provides grants up to three-fourths of the project costs, (2) for projects with one conglomerate, the GOK provides grants up to one-half of the project costs, (3) for projects with more than two participants of which SMEs comprise more than two-thirds of the participant ratio, the GOK provides up to three-fourths of the project costs, and (4) for projects with more than two participants of which SMEs comprise less than two-thirds of the participant ratio, the GOK provides up to one-half of the project costs.60

59Id.

60Id.

When the project is evaluated as “successful” upon completion, the participating companies must repay 40 percent of the R&D grant to the GOK over five years.61However, when the project is evaluated as “not successful,” the company does not have to repay the GOK any of the grant amount.62Id.

61Id.

62See Preliminary Results of CORE from Korea 2009,76 FR at 54213 and HYSCO's November QR at Exhibit Q-4.

Prior to and during the POR, HYSCO and POSCO received grants under the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act for R&D projects in which the companies participated with other firms.63

63SeeGOK's November QR at 16 and Q-1; HYSCO's November QR at 17, Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and POSCO's November 30, 2011, QR at Exhibit Q-2.

Concerning HYSCO, the nature of the projects for which it received the grants is business proprietary and cannot be discussed in this public notice.64Based upon our review of program documents submitted in the response, we preliminarily determine that one grant received is related to the second step of the project discussed in the section “Research and Development Grants Under the Industrial Development Act (IITPA)” inPreliminary Results of CORE from Korea 2009,in which the Department determined that grants received for this particular project under this program are attributable to non-subject merchandise.65Upon review of the information submitted by HYSCO and the GOK, we find that the terms and conditions of this grant project remain unchanged from thePreliminary Results of CORE from Korea 2009and preliminarily determine that this grant pertains specifically to production of a product that is not subject merchandise.66Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5) and our past practice, we preliminarily determine that this grant was bestowed in connection with the production of a product that is not subject merchandise. Hence we did not include this grant in our benefit calculations. In addition, HYSCO reported receiving another grant during the POR for a project that is being performed under the ITIPA.67Dividing the amount of this grant by HYSCO's total sales, results in a net subsidy rate that is less than 0.005 percentad valoremand, thus, is not numerically significant.

64SeeMemorandum to the File titled “HYSCO's R&D Grants Under the ITIPA”, (August 30, 2012), of which a public version is on file in IA Access.

65See Preliminary Results of CORE from Korea 2009,in which the Department found the grant in question to be tied to the production of non-subject merchandise, unchanged inFinal Results of Core from Korea 2009and HYSCO's November QR at Exhibit Q-4.

66SeeMemorandum to the File titled “HYSCO's R&D Grants Under the ITIPA” (August 31, 2012), of which a public version is on file in IA Access.

67SeeHYSCO's November QR at 18.

POSCO also reported receiving grants under the ITIPA prior to and during the POR.68Dividing the sum of POSCOs total grants in each year by POSCO's total sales in the corresponding year results in a net subsidy rate that is less than 0.005 percentad valorem.Consistent with the Department's practice, we find that the grants received by HYSCO and POSCO under this program are not measurable.69Consequently, we preliminarily determine that it is not necessary for the Department to make a finding as to the countervailability of the grants POSCO received under this program. If a future administrative review of this proceeding is requested, we will further examine grants provided under ITIPA.

B. R&D Grants Under the Act on the Promotion of the Development, Use, and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy

The GOK's Development of Use, and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy program (formerly the Development of Alternative Energy program) is reportedly designed to contribute to the preservation of the environment, the sound and sustainable development of the national economy, and the promotion of national welfare by diversifying energy resources through promoting technological development, the use and diffusion of alternative energy, and reducing the discharge of gases harmful to humans or the environment by activating the new and renewable energy industry.70The program is administered by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE), Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO), and the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP).71

Under the Act on the Promotion of the Development, Use, and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy (New and Renewable Energy Act), the GOK provides R&D grants to support the following businesses: (1) Electric and Nuclear Power Development, (2) Energy and Resources Technology Development, and (3) New and Renewable Energy Technology Development.72

72Id.

Pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of the New and Renewable Energy Act, MKE prepares a base plan and a yearly execution plan for the development of new and renewable energy.73The base and execution plans are announced to the public.74According to the GOK, any person who wishes to participate in the program prepares an R&D business plan and then submits the application to the KETEP, which then evaluates the application and selects the projects eligible for government support.75After the selected application is finally approved by MKE, KEMCO, and the general supervising institute of the consortium enter into an R&D agreement and then MKE provides the grant through KEMCO.76

73Id.

74Id.

75Id.

76Id.

The costs of the R&D projects under this program are shared by the company (or research institution) and the GOK.77Specifically, the grant ratio for projectcosts are as follows: (1) For large companies, the GOK provides grants up to one-half of the project costs, (2) for small/medium-sized companies, the GOK provides grants up to three-fourths of the project costs, (3) for a consortium,78the GOK provides grants up to three-fourths of the project costs, and (4) for others, the GOK provides grants up to one-half of the project costs.79

77Id.

78If the ratio of small to medium-sized companies in a consortium is above two-thirds, the GOK provides grants up to one-half of the project costs.SeeGOK's November QR, Exhibit R-1.

79Preliminary Results of CORE from Korea 2009,76 FR at 54214.

When the project is evaluated as “successful” upon completion, the participating companies must repay 40 percent of the R&D grant to the GOK.80However, when the project is evaluated as “not successful”, the company does not have to repay any of the grant amount to the GOK.81

80Id.

81Id.

During the POR, HYSCO received an energy-related grant under the New and Renewable Energy Act for a project in which the company participated with other firms.82HYSCO reported that the R&D grant under the New and Renewable Energy Act are provided with respect to specific projects, which are generally multi-year projects where the amount of funds to be provided by the GOK is set out in the project contract.83The cost of R&D projects under this program is shared by the participating companies and the GOK.84HYSCO points to the Department's prior decision concerning this project inPreliminary Results of CORE From Korea 2009,and reiterates its claim that the project for which the grant was received from the government was not related to subject merchandise.85

82SeeGOK's November QR at 17-18 and Exhibit R-1.

83SeeHYSCO's November QR at Exhibit R-3.

84Id.

85Id.at 19 citing toPreliminary Results of CORE from Korea 2009,76 FR at 54214, in which the Department found the grant in question to be tied to non-subject merchandise, unchanged in theFinal Results of CORE from Korea 2009; seealsoMemorandum to the File titled “HYSCO's R&D Grants under the Act on the Promotion of the Development, Use and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy” (August 24, 2011), submitted as Exhibit R-4 of HYSCO's November QR.

Upon review of the information from HYSCO and the GOK, we preliminarily determine that the grant was bestowed specifically in connection with production of a product that is not subject merchandise and is related to the project examined in the prior administrative review.86Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5) and our past practice, we preliminarily determine that this grant is tied to non-subject merchandise. Hence, we preliminarily determine that the New and Renewable Energy Act did not confer a benefit during the POR.

86SeeMemorandum to the File titled “HYSCO's R&D Grants under the Act on the Promotion of the Development, Use, and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy” (August 31, 2012) (HYSCO New and Renewable Energy Grant Memorandum), of which a public version is on file in IA Access.

InFinal Results of CORE From Korea 2006,the Department found that the GOK enacted the Overseas Resource Development (ORD) Business Act in order to establish the foundation for securing the long-term supply of essential energy and major material minerals, which are mostly imported because of scarce domestic resources.87Pursuant to Article 11 of this Act, MKE annually announces its budget and the eligibility criteria to obtain a loan from MKE.88Any company that meets the eligibility criteria may apply for a loan to MKE.89The loan evaluation committee evaluates the applications, selects the recipients and gets approval from the minister of MKE.90For projects related to the development of strategic mineral resources, the Korean Resources Corporation (KORES) lends the funds to the company for foreign resources development.91

During the POR, as in the prior administrative review, HYSCO had outstanding loans from KORES for investment in a copper mine in Mexico.92Based upon examination of the loan documents and our prior determination concerning these loans, we preliminarily determine that the KORES loans are tied to copper, which is non-subject merchandise.93Further, we find that copper is not an input primarily dedicated to the production of subject merchandise.94On this basis, we find the KORES loans are tied and attributable to non-subject merchandise.95Therefore, we preliminarily determine that HYSCO did not receive a benefit from this program with respect to the subject merchandise during the POR.

92SeeHYSCO's November QR at 20, Exhibit 8 at 15 and HYSCO's March 30, 2012 QR at Exhibits 15 and 16.

InFinal Results of CORE From Korea 2007,the Department found that the GOK enacted the Overseas Resource Development (ORD) Business Act in order to establish the foundation for securing the long-term supply of essential energy and major material minerals, which are mostly imported because of scarce domestic resources.96Pursuant to Article 11 of this Act, the MKE annually announces its budget and the eligibility criteria to obtain a loan from MKE.97Any company that meets the eligibility criteria may apply for a loan to MKE.98For projects that are related to petroleum and natural gas, the Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC) lends the funds to the company for foreign resources development.99An approved company enters into a borrowing agreement with KNOC for the development of the selected resource.100Two types of loans are provided under this program: “General loans” and “success-contingent loans”. For a success-contingent loan, the repayment obligation is subject to the results of the development project. In the event that the project fails, the company will be exempted for all or a portion of the loan repayment obligation. However, if the project succeeds, a portion of the project income is payable to KNOC.101

During the POR, HYSCO had outstanding loans from KNOC related to petroleum exploration projects.102Based upon examination of the loan documents and our determinations concerning these loans in the prioradministrative review, we preliminarily determine that the KNOC loans are tied to petroleum exploration, which does not involve subject merchandise.103On this basis, we find the KNOC loans are tied and attributable to non-subject merchandise.104Therefore, we preliminarily determine that HYSCO did not receive a benefit from this program with respect to the subject merchandise during the POR. We will continue to examine this program in future reviews.

102SeeHYSCO's November QR at 20 and Exhibit 8 at 16 and HYSCO's March 30, 2012, QR at 11 and Exhibit 17.

During the POR, POSCO was the only respondent company that had pre-1992 long-term loans outstanding during the POR.105Assuming,arguendo,that the benefit under this program is equal to the sum of POSCOs total interest payments made during the POR, the resulting net subsidy rate would be less than 0.005 percentad valoremwhen attributed to POSCO's total sales, which is not numerically significant. Thus, consistent with the Department's practice, we are excluding this amount from the net countervailable subsidy rate.

105SeeGOK's November QR at 3 and POSCO's November QR at 9.

F. Document Acceptance (D/A) Financing Provided Under KEXIM's Trade Rediscount Program and D/A Loans issued by the KDB and Other Government-Owned Banks

Under section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act, a subsidy can be found whenever the government “makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution, or entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution * * * to a person and a benefit is thereby conferred.” In theCFS Investigation,we determined that KEXIM's trade bill rediscount program constitutes a payment to a funding mechanism because the rediscount ceiling KEXIM provides to banks participating under the program is contingent on banks subsequently lending the funds to exporters.106Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act also states that financial contributions from funding mechanisms can be a subsidy only if providing the contribution would normally be vested in the government and the practice does not differ in substance from practices normally followed by the government. This is the “government subsidy function” prong of an indirect financial contribution. As determined in theCFS Investigation,under this program banks are performing a government subsidy function and, therefore, their loans can qualify as subsidies.107Therefore, we find that loans from banks under the rediscount program constitute financial contributions within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and confer a benefit upon exporters, in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, to the extent the amount exporters pay under the program is less than the amount they would pay on comparable commercial loans they could obtain on the market. Because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export performance, we also determine that KEXIM's rediscount program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act.

In theCFS investigation,we further determined that D/A Loans issued by the KDB and other government-owned banks constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.108In addition, we determined that such loans confer a benefit, in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, to the extent the amount exporters pay under the program is less than the amount they would pay on comparable commercial loans they could obtain on the market.109Because receipt of D/A loans is contingent upon export performance, we also determined that D/A loans from the KDB and other government-owned banks are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act.110

108SeeCFS Decision Memorandum at “D/A Loans Issued by the KDB and Other Government-Owned Banks.”

109Id.

110Id.

In theCFS Investigation,we further found that subsidies on the loans under KEXIM's trade bill rediscount program are tied to sales of subject merchandise to the United States in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(4) and (5). Accordingly, we limited our benefit calculations to D/A loans issued on sales of subject merchandise to the United States.111We preliminarily determine that there is no information on the record that warrants a reconsideration of the Department's prior findings.

111Id.

Dongbu reported receiving short-term D/A financing from commercial banks that participated in KEXIM's Trade Rediscount Program and D/A Loans issued by the KDB and other government-owned banks during the POR. To calculate the benefits to Dongbu under these programs, we compared the amount that Dongbu paid on all of its D/A loans from commercial banks outstanding during the POI to the amount Dongbu paid on comparable commercial loans.112Because loans under these programs are discounted (i.e.,interest is paid up front at the time the loans are received), the effective rate paid by respondents on their D/A loans is a discounted rate. The benefits Dongbu received were less than 0.005 percent of its total export sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, which is not numerically significant. Therefore, we are preliminarily excluding the amount from the net countervailable subsidy rate. HYSCO, POSCO and POCOS did not report any D/A financing from commercial banks during the POR.113

112See19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv).

113SeeHYSCO's November QR at 16 and POSCO's November QR at 18.

G. R&D Grants Under the Special Act on Balanced National Development

During the POR, HYSCO reported that it received a research and development grant under the Special Act on Balanced National Development (National Development Act).114

Upon review of the information submitted by HYSCO and the GOK, we preliminarily determine that the grant pertains specifically to the production of a product that is not subject merchandise.115Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5), we preliminarily determine that the National Development Act did not confer a benefit to the production or export of subject merchandise during the POR. If a future administrative review of this proceeding is requested, we will reconsider whether grants provided under the National Development Act confer a benefit.

115The exact nature of the project for which the R&D grant was received is business proprietary information.SeeMemorandum to the File titled “HYSCO's R&D Grants under the Act on the Promotion of the Special Act on Balanced National Development” (August 31, 2012) of which a public version is on file in IA Access.

H. Subsidies Related to HYSCO's 2004 Purchase of Hanbo Steel (Hanbo)

In January 1997, Korea's then second largest steelmaker, Hanbo Steel, collapsed under enormous debt and entered into bankruptcy proceedings, falling under the receivership of theSeoul Central District Bankruptcy Court (Bankruptcy Court). Petitioner alleged that from 1996 to 2000 the GOK provided credit, and also compelled Korean banks to provide credit, to Hanbo at a time when Hanbo was uncreditworthy.116According to petitioner, these loans continue to benefit HYSCO during the POR. Petitioner further alleged that in the aftermath of Hanbo's collapse, the GOK paid off Hanbo's debts to its small- and medium-sized creditors in order to save them from going into bankruptcy themselves, resulting in debt forgiveness to Hanbo. In September 2004, Hanbo was purchased by a consortium consisting of HYSCO and INI Steel Co. through a public auction under the Bankruptcy Court's supervision.117As a result of this sale, HYSCO acquired Hanbo's cold-rolled facility.118Petitioner alleged that the Korea Asset Management Corporation, a GOK entity, held the majority of Hanbo's debt at the time of its sale. Petitioner further alleged that the 2004 acquisition was not an arm's-length, fair-market-value transaction. Specifically, petitioner alleged that the transaction was contingent upon HYSCO/INI agreeing to retain Hanbo's workers for three years. Petitioner pointed out that under the Department's change-in-ownership methodology, there is a rebuttable presumption that allocable subsidies to a company will continue to benefit the purchaser of the company or its assets if the sales transaction was not at arm's length and for fair market value. Consequently, petitioner alleged that the 2004 transaction did not extinguish the benefit from the debt forgiveness that had been provided to Hanbo, resulting in an allocable benefit to HYSCO during the POR.

116SeePetitioners December 20, 2011, submission at 12.

117SeeHYSCO's June 19, 2012, submission at 2-3.

118Id.at 7.

The Department initiated an investigation of petitioner's allegations.119The Department's examination covers any GOK debt forgiveness to Hanbo from 1996 (the beginning of the 15-year AUL for this review) through September 2004 (the time of Hanbo's purchase), which could conceivably result in benefits allocable to the 2010 POR, as well as any GOK loans to Hanbo that are still outstanding during the POR, to the extent such loans were assumed by HYSCO.

With regard to petitioner's loan allegations, the information submitted by HYSCO and the GOK indicates that INI/HYSCO's 2004 purchase of Hanbo was an asset-only purchase and, thus, no liabilities were transferred to INI and HYSCO as part of the sale,i.e.,HYSCO did not assume any of Hanbo's debts.120Therefore, we preliminarily find that, to the extent that Hanbo may have received GOK or GOK-directed loans, any subsidy from such loans did not benefit HYSCO during the POR.

120Questionnaire responses further indicate that Hanbo received operating financing between 1998 and 2002, under court supervision, but that the debt was gradually paid down by 2002 with operating income.

With regard to petitioner's debt forgiveness allegations, the questionnaire responses from HYSCO and the GOK indicate that none of Hanbo's debt, including debts owed to suppliers and small- and medium-sized firms, was forgiven in 1996.121Thus, we preliminarily find that the only debt forgiveness at issue is any debt forgiveness resulting from Hanbo's bankruptcy beginning in 1997. Concerning the period 1997 until Hanbo's purchase in 2004, the questionnaire responses from the GOK and HYSCO indicate that Hanbo's debt was restructured pursuant to a court-supervised bankruptcy proceeding in accordance with Korea's Corporate Reorganization Law.122For example, effective January 31, 1997, the bankruptcy judge forbade Hanbo from liquidating any of its outstanding debt, transferring ownership, or engaging in any settlement or waiver.123During its bankruptcy, Hanbo was overseen by a court-approved trustee.124Further, the Bankruptcy Court's approval was required for all of Hanbo's major actions.125Finally, the 2004 sale of Hanbo through public auction was an integral part of the bankruptcy process and thus, as with all the other elements in the bankruptcy, also subject to court approval.

Concerning the terms of the bankruptcy itself, Hanbo's final reorganization plan, as approved by the Bankruptcy Court, indicates that, for the purposes of restructuring Hanbo's debts, Hanbo's creditors were divided into five categories depending on the type of creditor and existence of security: Secured creditors, unsecured creditors, SME creditors, tax creditors, and related-party creditors.126The documents further indicate that the repayment terms varied depending on the creditor group, but repayment terms were applied equally to creditors within the same creditor group.127As a result of this debt restructuring, Hanbo's debts were repaid at a discount with proceeds from the sale of assets. This process resulted in debt forgiveness to the extent that the debts were not repaid in full.

The Department addressed the issue of debt forgiveness in the context of bankruptcy proceedings in the final results ofStainless Steel from Korea,in which the Department explained that, in assessing the countervailability of the debt forgiveness, it examines whether: (1) The bankruptcy protection is generally available in the country in question, and (2) the bankruptcy in question was inconsistent with the typical practice in the country.128InStainless Steel from Korea,the Department found that where bankruptcy proceedings are conducted pursuant to law that is are generally available to all companies, and the particular company received no special or differential treatment in its bankruptcy process, debt forgiveness resulting from the bankruptcy procedures is not specific and, thus, not countervailable.129There is no information on the record of the current proceeding that warrants reconsideration of the Department's finding that that bankruptcies are generally available to all companies in Korea.

In the case of Hanbo's bankruptcy, we preliminarily find that it was conducted through legal proceedings generally available to all Korean companies.130Asnoted above, Hanbo entered into bankruptcy pursuant to Korea's Corporate Reorganization Law, under court receivership at the Bankruptcy Court, with its management and operations subject to supervision by a court-approved trustee. Further, there is no evidence that Hanbo received special or differential treatment in its bankruptcy process. Accordingly, the Department finds that Hanbo's debt restructuring was not subject to government influence resulting in subsidies.131Consequently, in accordance with the Department's practice, we preliminary find that to the extent the bankruptcy restructuring plan for Hanbo resulted in debt forgiveness, such debt forgiveness was not specific, as described under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act and, thus, not countervailable.

130We find that the Hanbo bankruptcy, which was essentially a liquidation process, differed from debt workouts that the Department has examined in other Korean CVD proceedings (e.g., DRAMS from Korea Investigationand theCFS Investigation), which involved out-of-court corporate restructuring agreements (CRAs) implemented by a body ofcreditors dominated by government-owned or controlled entities. The Department found those workouts to have been subject to government influence resulting in subsidies specific to the company or industry.See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea,68 FR 37122 (June 23, 2003) (DRAMS from Korea Investigation), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (DRAMS Decision Memorandum) at “Hynix Financial Restructuring and Recapitalization;”see alsoCFS Decision Memorandum at “Poognman Restructuring.”

Accordingly, absent any subsidy benefits that would be allocable to the POR, there is no need for the Department to analyze whether the 2004 sale of Hanbo was an arm's-length, fair-market-value transaction pursuant to the Department's change-in-ownership methodology.

I.RSTA 22: Corporation Tax Exemption on Dividend Income From Investment in Overseas Resource Development

Under RSTA Article 22, a domestic corporation, whose income for each business year ending before December 31, 2009, includes any dividend income from its investment in overseas resource development projects as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Enforcement Decree), is exempt from corporate tax for the portion of such dividend income that is exempted from the tax of the host country where the investment occurred. Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the RSTA prescribes the following investment projects as being eligible for this tax exemption: Agricultural products, Animal products, Fishery products, Forest products, and Mineral products.

POSCO reported that it had investments in overseas resource development projects as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree and received tax exemptions in the host country for these investments.132The tax exemptions were reflected in the tax return that POSCO filed during the POR. Dongbu and HYSCO reported that they did not use this program.

132SeePOSCO's December 2, 2011, QR at 12;see alsoGOK's November QR at 6.

We preliminarily determine that the tax exemptions POSCO received under this program constitute a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone as described under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and confer a benefit as described under section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a). Further, we preliminarily determine that tax exemptions received under this program are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(1) because benefits are limited to firms with investment projects concerning agricultural, animal, fishery, forest, and mineral products.

Under this program, the benefit is equal to the amount of added income taxes that POSCO would have paid absent the program. The benefits POSCO received were less than 0.005 percent of its total sales. Therefore, we are preliminarily excluding the amount from POSCO's net countervailable subsidy rate.

J. Reduction in Taxes for Operation in Regional and National Industrial Complexes

Under Article 46 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (Industrial Cluster Act), a state or local government may provide tax exemptions as prescribed by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.133In accordance with this authority, Article 276 of the Local Tax Act provides that an entity that acquires real estate in a designated industrial complex for the purpose of constructing new buildings or enlarging existing facilities is exempt from the acquisition and registration tax. In addition, the entity is exempt from 50 percent of the property tax on the real estate (i.e.,the land, buildings, or facilities constructed or expanded) for five years from the date the tax liability becomes effective. The exemption is increased to 100 percent of the relevant land, buildings, or facilities that are located in an industrial complex outside of the Seoul metropolitan area. The GOK established the tax exemption program under Article 276 in December 1994, to provide incentives for companies to relocate from populated areas in the Seoul metropolitan region to industrial sites in less populated parts of the country. The program is administered by the local tax officials of the county where the industrial complex is located.

133Pursuant to the petitioner's new subsidy allegations, the Department initiated an investigation of property, acquisition and registration tax exemptions allegedly received by POSCO, Dongbu, and HYSCO for their respective facilities in various locations. The information submitted by the respondent firms and the GOK indicates that these tax exemptions were received pursuant to a program under Article 276 of the Local Tax Act, which the Department has previously examined and found to be countervailable.

During the POR, pursuant to Article 276 of the Local Tax Act, HYSCO received exemptions from the acquisition tax, registration tax, and property tax based on the location of its manufacturing facilities, Suncheon Works, in the Yulchon Industrial Complex, and its facilities in the Ulsan Works industrial complex designated under the Industrial Cluster Act.134During the POR, POSCO and Dongbu received property reductions in connection with their facilities located in the Gwangyang Industrial Complex and Godae Industrial Complex, respectively. In addition, HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu received an exemption from the local education tax during the POR. The local education tax is levied at 20 percent of the property tax. The property tax exemption, therefore, results in an exemption of the local education tax.

134SeeHYSCO's November QR at Exhibit H-2 and HYSCO's May 25, 2012, questionnaire response (HYSCO's May QR) at 4 and Exhibit H-4.

We preliminarily determine that the tax reductions constitute a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone, as described under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, and a benefit under section 771(5)(E) and 19 CFR 351.509(a). We further preliminarily determine that the property tax exemptions provided under this program are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because benefits are limited to enterprises located within designated geographical regions. Our findings in this regard are consistent with the Department's practice.135

To calculate the benefit, we subtracted the amount of taxes paid by the firms from the amounts that would have been paid absent the program. To calculate the net subsidy rate, wedivided the total benefit by the firms' total sales. In the case of HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu, the resulting net subsidy rates were less than 0.005 percentad valorem.Consistent with the Department's practice, we find that the benefits received under this program are not measurable and, therefore, we have not included any benefits under this program in net subsidy rates of HYSCO and POSCO.136

The following programs were part of the petitioner's new subsidy allegations on which the Department initiated an investigation.137Based on the information submitted by the GOK and the respondents, we preliminarily determine that these programs were not used during the POR.

• Corporate Tax Reduction for Facilities Located in the Godae Complex• Income Tax Reduction for Facilities Located in the Godae Complex• Cash Grants for Employees Working at Facilities in Jeollanamdo• Training and Education Subsidies at Facilities in Jeollanamdo• Support for New Investments in Facilities in Jeollanamdo• Reduction in Rent for Facilities Located in Industrial Complexes• Employment Subsidies for Large-Scale Investment in Ulsan• Special Support for Large-Scale Investments in Ulsan• Technology Development Loans for Facilities in Gwangyang Complex• Foundation Loans for Facilities in Gwangyang Complex

The Department included the following programs in its October 5, 2011, initial questionnaire. We preliminarily determine that these programs were not used by the reviewed companies during the POR.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rates for HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu to be 0.08, 0.16, 0.11, percentad valorem,respectively, which arede minimisrates.See19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).

The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced by HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. The Department will also instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of zero percent on shipments of the subject merchandise produced by HYSCO, POSCO, and Dongbu entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested.

Disclosure and Public Comment

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. We will notify parties of the schedule for submitting case briefs and rebuttal briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1), respectively. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(b)(4), representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party tothe proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.

These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On July 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.1Because no domestic interested party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.

The merchandise subject to the orders is natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise covered by the orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive.

Background

The Department published antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina on December 10, 2001.2In the first sunset reviews, the Department and the International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that continuation of the orders was warranted.3

3See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Honey from Argentina and the People's Republic of China, and Continuation of Countervailing Duty Order on Honey From Argentina,72 FR 42384 (August 2, 2007).

On July 2, 2012, the Department initiated the current sunset reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218.See Initiation Notice.We received no response from the domestic industry by the deadline date.See19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, the Department has determined that no domestic interested party intends to participate in the sunset reviews.See19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A). OnJuly 22, 2012, the Department notified the ITC in writing that we intended to revoke the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.See19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2).

Revocation

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested parties respond to a notice of initiation, the Department shall, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoke the order. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate in these sunset reviews, we are revoking the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on honey from Argentina.

Effective Date of Revocation

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to these orders entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after August 2, 2012, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication of the last continuation notice. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty and countervailing duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

These five-year (“sunset”) reviews and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: September 17, 2012.Paul Piquado,Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.[FR Doc. 2012-23359 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-DS-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEInternational Trade AdministrationNotice of Solicitation of Applications for Allocation of Tariff Rate Quotas on the Import of Certain Worsted Wool Fabrics to Persons Who Cut and Sew Men's and Boys' Worsted Wool Suits, Suit-Type Jackets and Trousers in the United StatesAGENCY:

Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

ACTION:

The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is soliciting applications for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric to persons who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers in the United States.

SUMMARY:

The Department hereby solicits applications from persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers in the United States for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric. Interested persons must submit an application on the form provided to the address listed below by October 22, 2012. The Department will cause to be published in theFederal Registerits determination to allocate the 2013 tariff rate quotas and will notify applicants of their respective allocation as soon as possible after that date. Promptlythereafter, the Department will issue licenses to eligible applicants.

DATES:

To be considered, applications must be received or postmarked by 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Applications must be submitted to the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 30003, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230 (telephone: (202) 482-3400). Application forms may be obtained from that office (via mail or facsimile) or from the following Internet address:http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/wooltrq/wool_app.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (the Act) created two tariff rate quotas (TRQs), providing for temporary reductions in the import duties on limited quantities of two categories of worsted wool fabrics suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers: (1) For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) heading 9902.51.11); and (2) for worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less (HTS heading 9902.51.12). On August 6, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Trade Act of 2002, which includes several amendments to Title V of the Act. On December 3, 2004, the Act was further amended pursuant to the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004, Public Law 108-429, by increasing the TRQ for worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns, HTS 9902.51.11, to an annual total level of 5.5 million square meters, and extending it through 2007, and increasing the TRQ for average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less, HTS 9902.51.15 (previously 9902.51.12), to an annual total level of 5 million square meters and extending it through 2006. On August 17, 2006 the Act was further amended pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280, which extended both TRQs, 9902.51.11 and 9902.51.15, through 2009. The Senate-passed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the TRQ for both HTS numbers through 2014.

The Act requires that the TRQs be allocated to persons who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers in the United States. On October 24, 2005, the Department adopted final regulations establishing procedures for allocating the TRQ.See70 FR 61363; 19 CFR 335. In order to be eligible for an allocation, an applicant must submit an application on the form provided athttp://otexa.ita.doc.gov/wooltrq/wool_app.htmto the address listed above by 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012 in compliance with the requirements of 15 CFR 335. Any business confidential information that is marked business confidential will be kept confidential and protected from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law.

Dated: September 17, 2012.Kim Glas,Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel.[FR Doc. 2012-23358 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-DS-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEInternational Trade AdministrationNotice of Solicitation of Applications for Allocation of Tariff Rate Quotas on the Import of Certain Worsted Wool Fabrics to Persons Who Weave Such Fabrics in the United StatesAGENCY:

International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

The Department of Commerce (Department) is soliciting applications for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric to persons who weave such fabrics in the United States.

SUMMARY:

The Department hereby solicits applications from persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who weave worsted wool fabrics in the United States for an allocation of the 2013 tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabric. Interested persons must submit an application on the form provided to the address listed below by October 22, 2012. The Department will cause to be published in theFederal Registerits determination to allocate the 2013 tariff rate quotas and will notify applicants of their respective allocation as soon as possible after that date. Promptly thereafter, the Department will issue licenses to eligible applicants.

DATES:

To be considered, applications must be received or postmarked by 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Applications must be submitted to the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 30003, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230 (telephone: (202) 482-3400). Application forms may be obtained from that office (via facsimile or mail) or from the following Internet address:http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/wooltrq/wool_fabric.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (the Act) created two tariff rate quotas (TRQs), providing for temporary reductions in the import duties on limited quantities of two categories of worsted wool fabrics suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers: (1) For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) heading 9902.51.11); and (2) for worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less (HTS heading 9902.51.12). On August 6, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Trade Act of 2002, which includes several amendments to Title V of the Act. On December 3, 2004, the Act was further amended pursuant to the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004, Public Law 108-429. The 2004 amendment included authority for the Department to allocate a TRQ for new HTS category, HTS 9902.51.16. This HTS category refers to worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameter of 18.5 microns or less. The amendment provided that HTS 9902.51.16 is for the benefit of persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who weave such worsted wool fabric in the United States that is suitable for making men's and boys' suits. The TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 provided for temporary reductions in the import duties on 2,000,000 square meters annually for 2005 and 2006. The amendment requires that the TRQ be allocated to persons who weave worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameter of 18.5 microns or less, which is suitable for use in making men's and boys' suits, in the United States. On August 17, 2006, the Act was further amended pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280, which extended the TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 through 2009. The Senate-passed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended the TRQ for HTS 9902.51.16 through 2014.

On October 24, 2005, the Department adopted final regulations establishing procedures for allocating the TRQ.See70 FR 61363; 19 CFR 335. In order to be eligible for an allocation, an applicant must submit an application on the form provided athttp://otexa.ita.doc.gov/wooltrq/wool_fabric.htmto the address listed above by 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012 in compliance with the requirements of 15 CFR 335. Any business confidential information that is marked business confidential will be kept confidential and protected from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of a public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Pacific Fishery Management Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT), Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Salmon Subcommittee, and Model Evaluation Workgroup (MEW) will review proposed salmon methodology changes in a joint work session, which is open to the public.

DATES:

The work session will be held Wednesday, October 10, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesday, October 11, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

The work session will be held at the Shilo Inns Suites Hotel, Willamette 1 Room, 11707 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97220.

The purpose of the work session is to discuss and review proposed changes to analytical methods used in salmon management. Potential topics for the work session include but are not limited to; bias-correction methods for mark-selective coho fisheries, size limit evaluation methods for Chinook fisheries, and a preliminary assessment of abundance-based management of California Coastal Chinook. The final list of topics for the work session is scheduled to be adopted by the Council at their September 13-18, 2012 meeting in Boise, ID.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STT, SSC Salmon Subcommittee, and MEW for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of public hearings.

SUMMARY:

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene Public Hearings on proposed Reef Fish Amendment 37 addressing revisions to the gray triggerfish rebuilding plan including adjustments to the annual catch limits and annual catch targets for the commercial and recreational sectors. Public hearings will also be held simultaneously on a proposed Framework Action to modify the 2013 recreational gag fishing season, consider changes to the gag bag limit, and consider modifying or eliminating the February 1 through March 31 recreational closed season on shallow-water grouper.

DATES:

The public hearings will be held from October 15-18, 2012 at eight locations throughout the Gulf of Mexico. The public hearings will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates, seeSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES:

The public hearings will be held in the following locations: Naples, St. Petersburg, and Destin, FL; Gulf Shores, AL; D'Iberville, MS; Kenner, LA; Galveston and Corpus Christi, TX.

The Council will convene public hearings on two proposed actions to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. Reef Fish Amendment 37 proposes modifications to the gray triggerfish rebuilding plan including modifications to the annual catch limits and annual catch targets for the commercial and recreational sectors. Proposed commercial management measures needed to meet the reduction in the annual catch limit and annual catch target for gray triggerfish include establishing a fixed closed season and a trip limit. Proposed recreational management measures include establishing a fixed closed season and modifying the recreational bag limit for gray triggerfish within the 20-reef fish aggregate bag limit. This amendment also includes proposed modifications to the recreational accountability measures to allow NOAA Fisheries Service to close the recreational sector once the annual catch target is reached or projected to be reached, and if the annual catch limit is exceeded to apply an overage adjustment by reducing the annual catch limit and optional annual catch target the following fishing season.

The Framework Action to set the 2013 gag recreational fishing season, bag limit, and to modify the February through March shallow-water grouper closed season contains alternatives formodifications to regulations addressing recreational fishing for gag and shallow-water grouper. Alternatives being considered to modify the recreational gag fishing season would change the starting date for the recreational gag season from July 1 to an earlier time when there is greater demand to fish for gag, or would split the season into two or three sub-seasons. Changing the season to times when there is greater demand may reduce the number of fishing days relative to the status quo, so suboptions within the alternatives consider either retaining the current gag bag limit of 2 fish per person within the 4-fish aggregate shallow-water grouper bag limit, or reducing the bag limit for gag to 1 fish in order to extend the season. The Framework Action will also consider revising the current closed season on recreational harvest of shallow-water grouper by either shortening or eliminating the closed season, moving it to a different date, or having the closed season apply only seaward of the 20 fathom depth contour while eliminating it shoreward of 20 fathoms.

Copies of the public hearing documents can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or by visiting the Council's Web site atwww.gulfcouncil.org.

Special Accommodations

These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council (seeADDRESSES) at least 5 working days prior to the hearing.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of a public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a conference call of its Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT). A listening station will be available at the Pacific Council offices for interested members of the public, and there may be opportunities to attend the meeting remotely.

DATES:

The conference call will be held Tuesday, October 9, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held via conference call, with a public listening station available at the Pacific Council offices, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The primary purpose of the conference call is to discuss a proposed harvest parameters workshop. Other items that may be discussed include the 2012 Pacific sardine stock assessment update, and items related to the November 2012 Council meeting.

Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the CPSMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, at (503) 820-2280, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of a public meetings.

SUMMARY:

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a meeting of the Standing, Special Shrimp and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC), including a joint session of the Standing SSC and Socioeconomic SSC, and a joint session of the Gulf Council's Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's SSC; and a separate meeting of the Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committee.

DATES:

The Standing, Special Shrimp and Special Reef Fish SSC meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, and conclude by noon, Thursday, October 11, 2012. The Socioeconomic SSC meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, October 10th and conclude by 5 p.m. Thursday, October 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay, 2900 Bayport Drive, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 874-1234.

For the Standing, Special Shrimp and Special Reef Fish SSC: Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician. For the Socioeconomic SSC: Dr. Assane Diagne, Economist; both located at Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Standing and Special Shrimp SSC will meet jointly on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, to review stock assessments on brown shrimp, white shrimp and pinkshrimp. These are updates to stock assessments presented to the SSC in June, but with landings data through 2011. Based on these assessments, the SSC may review its recommendations from June for overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC). On Wednesday morning, October 10, 2012, from 9 a.m. to noon, the Standing SSC will meet jointly with the Socioeconomic SSC to discuss the roles of the Standing and Socioeconomic SSCs. On Wednesday afternoon, October 10, 2012, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., the Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC will meet jointly with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's SSC to review a yellowtail snapper benchmark assessment (SEDAR 27). Based on the assessment, the SSCs will determine an OFL and set an ABC for the stock as a whole. For management purposes, the ABC will be apportioned 75% to the South Atlantic and 25% to the Gulf. On Thursday, October 11, 2012, the Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC will meet jointly to review and approve the terms of reference for gag and greater amberjack benchmark assessments (SEDAR 34) and select attendees for the gag benchmark assessment workshops. In addition, the SSC will discuss review methods for the SEDAR 28 (Gulf of Mexico Spanish Mackerel and Cobia) benchmark assessment. The SSC will also review recommendations from the ABC Control Rule Working Group on revisions to the ABC control rule implemented in January 2012 under the Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment. Finally, the SSC will review the SEDAR assessment schedule and priorities, and proposed dates for 2013 SSC meetings.

The Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committee will convene on Wednesday, October 10 and Thursday, October 11 to discuss the structure and roles of the Scientific and Statistical Committees and issues related to the red snapper individual fishing quota (IFQ) program and its 5-year review, including an evaluation of the economic performance of the program, the 2011 red snapper IFQ report, IFQ survey results, trends in the program, and the review process. The committee will also discuss issues related to the allocation of red snapper resources, including an economic evaluation of red snapper allocation and social aspects of allocation. The committee also plans to elect a new chair and vice-chair.

Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or can be downloaded from the Council's ftp site:ftp.gulfcouncil.org.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (seeADDRESSES) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

The membership of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:

Teresa Stanek Rea, Chair, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.Frederick W. Steckler, Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office.Margaret A. Focarino, Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and Trademark Office.Deborah S. Cohn, Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office.Anthony P. Scardino, Chief Financial Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office.John B. Owens II, Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office.Bernard J. Knight Jr., General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office.Shira Perlmutter, Administrator for Policy and External Affairs, United States Patent and Trademark OfficeAlternatesMary Boney Denison, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations, United States Patent and Trademark Office.Andrew I. Faile, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, United States Patent and Trademark Office.Dated: September 17, 2012.David J. Kappos,Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[FR Doc. 2012-23385 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-16-PCOMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLEDProcurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsAGENCY:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

ACTION:

Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

SUMMARY:

The Committee is proposing to add a product and service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities and to delete products previously furnished by such agencies.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

Additions

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and service to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

End of Certification

The following product and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), submitted the following recordkeeping requirement notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). CNCS requested that OMB review and approve its emergency request by September 27, 2012, for a period of six months. This recordkeeping requirement, located in 45 CFR 2540.205-.206, may be obtained by contacting Amy Borgstrom, (202) 606-6930 or by email ataborgstrom@cns.gov.

Because CNCS requested OMB's approval of this emergency request by September 27, 2012, there will not be enough time for the public to provide comments through thisFederal RegisterNotice before the approval date. Therefore, there will be no comment period for this request.

Type of Review:Emergency request.

Agency:Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title:Recordkeeping Requirement.

OMB Number:3045-0047.

Agency Number:None.

Affected Public:CNCS Grantees and Subgrantees.

Total Respondents:112,356.

Frequency:Three times per covered position.

Average Time per Response:Five minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours:28,089 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):None.

Description:The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) will issue the final rule implementing the Serve America Act's National Service Criminal History Check rule. In an effort to be compliant while maintaining functions essential to the operations of each CNCS grantee, we are therefore submitting the enclosed request under 5 CFR 1320.13 to OMB for emergency processing and approval of recordkeeping requirements.

CNCS and its grantees must ensure that national service beneficiaries are protected from harm and the recordkeeping requirements of the final rule are critical to that responsibility. Moreover, as CNCS and OMB have previously communicated, CNCS is working hard to ensure it is fully compliant with the Paperwork Reduction Act and with OMB's information collection policies and procedures.

If you have any questions, contact Amy Borgstrom at 202-606-6930 oraborgstrom@cns.gov.We sincerely thank you for your consideration of this request and your willingness to work with us in remaining fully compliant with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Dated: September 17, 2012.Valerie Green,General Counsel.[FR Doc. 2012-23279 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6050-$$-PDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEDepartment of the ArmyBoard of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA)AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION:

Meeting notice.

SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place:

1. Name of Committee:United States Military Academy Board of Visitors.

2. Date:Friday, October 26, 2012.

3. Time:3:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting will need to show photo identification in order to gain access to the meeting location. All participants are subject to security screening.

4. Location:Jefferson Hall, Haig Room, West Point, NY.

5. Purpose of the Meeting:This is the 2012 Fall Meeting of the USMA Board of Visitors (BoV). Members of the Board will be provided updates on Academy issues.

6. Agenda:The Academy leadership will provide the Board updates on the following: Intercollegiate Athletics Program Update, Honor and Respect Program Update, and Academic Program Update.

7. Public's Accessibility to the Meeting:Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis.

Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the USMA Board of Visitors. Written statements should be sent to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at: United States Military Academy, Office of the Secretary of the General Staff (MASG), 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996-1905 or faxed to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (845) 938-3214. Written statements must be received no later than five working days prior to the next meeting in order to provide time for member consideration. By rule, no member of the public attending open meetings will be allowed to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact is Ms. Deadra Ghostlaw, (845) 938-4200,Deadra.Ghostlaw@us.army.mil.

Brenda S. Bowen,Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.[FR Doc. 2012-23304 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3710-08-PDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEDepartment of the Army; Corps of EngineersIntent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Installation of a Terminal Groin Structure at Shallotte River Inlet and To Conduct Supplemental Beach Nourishment Along the Eastern Oceanfront Shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach, in Brunswick County, NCAGENCY:

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION:

Notice of intent.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office has received a request for Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, from the Town of Ocean Isle Beach to develop and implement a shoreline protection plan that includes the installation of a terminal groin structure on the west side of Shallotte Inlet (not a federally maintained navigational channel) and the nourishment of the oceanfront shoreline along the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach.

DATES:

A public scoping meeting for the Draft EIS will be held at Ocean Isle Beach Town Hall, located at 3 West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, on October 3, 2012, at 6 p.m. Written comments will be received until October 26, 2012.

Questions about the proposed action and Draft EIS can be directed to Ms. Emily Hughes, Project Manager, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone: (910) 251-4635. Additional description of the Town's proposal can be found at the following link,http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Projects/index.html,under Ocean Isle Beach Terminal Groin Project.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Project Description. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach is considering the installation of a terminal groin on the east end of the town's shoreline adjacent to Shallotte Inlet to address chronic erosion over the past 20-25 years. Erosion rates on the east end range from 4-8 feet a year based on the latest shoreline change update developed by the NC Division of Coastal Management. The overall length of the terminal groin could range from 800-1,000 feet; however, the final dimensions of the structure could differ following detailed engineering design. The structure would include a short anchorage section that could extend 350-400 feet landward of the existing shoreline. Beach fill, extending 2,000-2,500 feet west of the terminal groin would be placed to pre-fill the fillet area. The volume of material required for the fillet could range from 200,000-400,000 cubic yards. The material for the beach fill would be obtained from the existing federal borrow area in Shallotte Inlet, the AIWW inlet crossing, or a combination of the two. Ocean Isle Beach proposes to apply for non-federal permits for the use of these two areas by developing the information required to comply with the State Sediment Criteria.

2. Issues.There are several potential environmental and public interest issues that will be addressed in the EIS. Additional issues may be identified during the scoping process. Issues initially identified as potentially significant include:

3. Alternatives.Several alternatives and sand sources are being considered for the development of the protection plan. These alternatives will be further formulated and developed during the scoping process and an appropriate range of alternatives, including the no federal action alternative, will be considered in the EIS.

4. Scoping Process.A public scoping meeting (seeDATES) will be held to receive public comment and assess public concerns regarding the appropriate scope and preparation of the Draft EIS. Participation in the public meeting by federal, state, and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is encouraged.

The USACE will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Endangered Species Act; and with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office under the National Historic Preservation Act. Additionally, the USACE will coordinate the Draft EIS with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) to assess the potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) to determine the projects consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The USACE will closely work with NCDCM and NCDWQ in the development of the EIS to ensure the process complies with all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. It is the intention of both the USACE and the State of North Carolina to consolidate the NEPA and SEPA processes thereby eliminating duplication.

6. Availability of the Draft EIS.The Draft EIS is expected to be published and circulated by mid 2013. A public hearing will be held after the publication of the Draft EIS.

Department of the Army (DA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), DoD.

ACTION:

Notice of intent.

SUMMARY:

The Corps, Seattle District, received permit applications for Pacific International Terminal, Inc.'s Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway's Custer Spur Rail Expansion projects. DA permits are required for both projects pursuant to either Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 United States Code (U.S.C.) 403) and/or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The Corps has determined the proposed projects are interrelated and may have significant individual and/or cumulative impacts on the human environment. An EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4232(2)(c), and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Preparation of the EIS will support the Corps' eventual decision to either issue, issue with modification or deny DA permits for the proposed actions. The EIS will assess the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the projects and is intended to be sufficient in scope to address Federal, State, and local requirements, environmental and socio-economic issues concerning the proposed action, and permit reviews. The EIS process begins with the publication of this Notice of Intent. The EIS will be prepared according to the Corps' procedures for implementing NEPA, 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 325, Appendix B, 53 Federal Regulations 3120 (February 3, 1988), and consistent with the Corps' policy to facilitate public understanding and review of agency proposals.

DATES:

The scoping period will start on September 24, 2012. Written comments regarding the scope of the EIS—including the environmental analysis, range of alternatives, and potential mitigation actions—should be received at the address below or submitted by email to:comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.govby January 21, 2013.

1.Proposed Action.The construction of a new pier in marine waters and associated rail and cargo handling facilities in adjacent wetlands and uplands and the expansion of an existing rail spur line into wetlands and across streams. The Corps is preparing an EIS to analyze the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with authorizing the actions.

2.Project Description.The project sites are located in Whatcom County, Washington, northwest of Ferndale and south of Birch Bay in an area called Cherry Point.

Pacific International Terminals, Inc., is proposing the GPT project to be developed on approximately 350 acres and would include a three-berth, deep-water wharf. The proposed wharf would be 3,000 feet long and 105 feet wide, with access to suitably deep water provided by an approximately 1,100 foot-long by 50 foot-wide trestle. Upland facilities will include open air and covered commodity storage, each serviced by an on-site rail loop. A system of conveyors would connect the commodity storage areas to the trestle and wharf. The upland facilities would also contain rail unloading facilities, roadways, service buildings, storm water treatment facilities, and utility infrastructure. Development of these facilities will result in impacts to approximately 145 acres of wetlands and numerous drainage features (ditches). Mitigation for proposed unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to comply with the Corps' 2008 mitigation rule (33 CFR 322.1). Commodities would be delivered to the GPT by rail via the existing BNSF Railway's Custer Spur line from the Bellingham subdivision main line. BNSF Railway is proposing to upgrade its existing Custer Spur line with additional tracks and sidings, which will impact approximately 17 acres of wetlands and involve modifications to two creek crossings and several ditches. Mitigation for proposed unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. will berequired to comply with applicable Corps requirements.

3.Alternatives.The EIS will address an array of alternatives for providing facilities suitable for the shipping and receiving of dry bulk goods (grains, ore, coal, etc.) and for handling rail traffic to the new facility. Alternatives analyzed during the investigation may include but are not limited to no-action, alternative sites, alternative methods for shipping and handling bulk goods, alternative facility designs, and alternatives for the railroad spur upgrades. Mitigation measures may include but are not limited to avoidance of sensitive areas, creation or enhancement of marine macroalgae beds, and creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands.

4.Scoping Process.The scoping period will continue for 120 days after publication of this Notice of Intent and will close on January 21, 2013. During the scoping period, the Corps invites Federal agencies, State and local governments, Native American Tribes, and the public to participate in the scoping process either by providing written comments or by attending the public scoping meetings scheduled at the time and location indicated below. Written comments will be considered in the preparation of the Draft EIS. Comments postmarked or received by email after the specified date will be considered to the extent feasible.

The purpose of scoping is to assist the Corps in defining issues, public concerns, and alternatives and the depth to which they will be evaluated in the EIS. The Corps has prepared project information documents to familiarize agencies, Tribes, the public, and interested organizations with the proposed projects and potential environmental issues. Copies of the documents will be available at the public meeting and at the Web sitewww.eisgatewaypacificwa.govor can be requested by contacting the Corps, Seattle District, as described above. Corps' representatives will answer scope-related questions and accept comments at public scoping meetings.

a. Public scoping meetings will be held to present an overview of the GPT and Custer Spur projects and to afford all parties an opportunity to provide comments regarding the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts. The public scoping meetings will be held as follows:

During the scoping period, a continuous “on-line scoping meeting” will be hosted on the EIS Web site atwww.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.

b. Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS include but are not limited to project-specific and cumulative effects on navigation (e.g., vessel traffic and navigational safety); marine aquatic habitats, including State-designated aquatic reserves; marine aquatic species, including Endangered Species Act listed species and Washington State species of concern; Tribal treaty rights; wetland and riparian habitat and wildlife; railroad and vehicle traffic; cultural, historic, and archeological resources; air and water quality; noise; recreation; land use; and aesthetics.

c. The Corps will serve as the lead agency for compliance with NEPA, and Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (the County) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) will serve as the lead agencies for compliance with SEPA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Coast Guard will serve as cooperating agencies under NEPA. The Corps will consult with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer and applicable Tribes to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act; the National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with the Essential Fish Habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and applicable Tribes to comply with treaty provisions on fishing rights.

d. Development of the draft EIS will begin after the close of the scoping period. The draft EIS is currently scheduled to be available for public review and comment in January 2014.

e. A 120-day public review period will be provided for all interested parties, individuals, and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS. All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified when the draft EIS is issued.

f. All comments received will become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release, as appropriate, in their entirety, including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses if included in the comment.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a document in theFederal Registerof February 21, 2012, a final notice concerning the reissuance of nationwide permits. On March 19, 2012, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a correction to that final notice. This document contains additional corrections to the February 21, 2012, final notice.

Mr. David Olson at 202-761-4922 or by email atdavid.b.olson@usace.army.milor access the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Home Page athttp://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx.

Corrections

In theFederal Registerof February 21, 2012, in FR Doc. 2012-3687, the following corrections are made:

On page 10273, second column, correct the first sentence of NWP 15 to read as follows to reflect the fact that the U.S. Coast Guard authorizes bridges over navigable waters through permits issued under other statutory authorities, such as the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525, 528, 530, and 533), instead of Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401): “Discharges of dredged or fill material incidental to the construction of a bridge across navigable waters of the United States, including cofferdams, abutments, foundation seals, piers, and temporary construction and access fills, provided the construction of the bridge structure has been authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or other applicable laws.”

On page 10287, second column, correct the first sentence of paragraph (d)(2) of general condition 31 to read as follows: “For all NWP activities that require pre-construction notification and result in the loss of greater than1/2-acre of waters of the United States, for NWP 21, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, and 52 activities that require pre-construction notification and will result in the loss of greater than 300 linear feet of stream bed, and for all NWP 48 activities that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer will immediately provide (e.g., via email, facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (U.S. FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and, if appropriate, the NMFS).”

DOE announces the availability of theDraft Environmental Impact Statement for the W.A. Parish Post-Combustion Carbon Dioxide(CO2)Capture and Sequestration Project(DOE/EIS-0473D) for public review and comment, as well as the dates, locations, and times for two public hearings. The draft environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the potential environmental impacts of a project proposed by NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG), which was selected by DOE to receive financial assistance under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program. DOE's proposed action is to provide cost-shared funding to NRG under the CCPI. DOE proposes to provide NRG with up to $167 million of the overall project cost to support the construction and operation of NRG's W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2Capture and Sequestration Project (Parish PCCS Project). NRG's proposed project would demonstrate the commercial feasibility of a retrofit, commercial-scale CO2capture and compression system, coupled with use of the captured CO2for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and ultimate sequestration. NRG would design and construct a system that would capture at least 90 percent of the CO2in an up to 250-megawatt equivalent (MWe) flue gas slipstream of the combustion exhaust gases from the existing 650-megawatt (MW) coal fired Unit 8 at NRG's W.A. Parish Plant in Fort Bend County, Texas. The captured CO2(up to 5,475 tons per day) would be transported approximately 80 miles in a new pipeline to be constructed by NRG. The CO2would be used for EOR and ultimately sequestered at the existing West Ranch oil field in Jackson County, Texas.

DATES:

DOE invites the public to comment on the draft EIS during the public comment period, which ends November 5, 2012. DOE will consider all comments postmarked or received during the comment period in preparing the final EIS and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. In addition to receiving comments in writing and by email [SeeADDRESSES], DOE will conduct two public hearings at which government agencies, private sector organizations, Native American tribes, and individuals are invited to present oral and written comments on the draft EIS. The public hearings will be held at the Thompsons Community Center, 134 Oilfield Road, Thompsons, Texas, on October 10, 2012, and at the Edna High School, 1303 W. Gayle Street, Edna, Texas, on October 11, 2012. Oral comments will be heard during the formal portion of the public hearings beginning at 7 p.m. The public is also invited to informal sessions beginning at 5 p.m. at the same locations to learn more about the project and DOE's proposed action. Representatives from DOE and NRG will be present at the informal sessions to discuss the proposed project, the CCPI program, and the EIS process. Displays and other information about DOE's proposed action and NRG's Parish PCCS Project will also be available.

ADDRESSES:

Requests for paper or electronic copies of the draft EIS, requests to speak at the public hearings, or submission of written comments should be directed to: Mr. Mark W. Lusk, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 3610 Collins Ferry Road, M/S I07, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880. Requests or comments can also be made by electronic mail toParish.EIS0473@netl.doe.gov;by telephone (412) 386-7435, toll free 1-877-812-1569; or by fax (304) 285-4403.

The draft EIS is available on the NETL Web page athttp://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/index.htmland on the DOE NEPA Web page athttp://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents.htm.Copies of the draft EIS will also be available at the locations listed in theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection of this notice. Written comments on the draft EIS should be marked “Parish PCCS Project” and sent to Mark W. Lusk, NEPA document manager, by one of the methods listed above. Oral comments on the draft EIS can be provided during the public hearings scheduled for the dates and locations provided in theDATESsection of this notice.

DOE's proposed action is to provide financial assistance to NRG under the CCPI Program to support construction and operation of NRG's Parish PCCS Project. DOE would provide NRG with up to $167 million of the overall project cost, or about 20 percent of the estimated total costs. This funding would be used for project design and development, procurement of capital equipment, construction, CO2capture plant operations, and CO2monitoring duringthe 35-month demonstration period of the CO2capture and compression system.

The proposed Parish PCCS Project would use an advanced amine-based CO2absorption technology to capture at least 90 percent of the CO2from an up to 250-MWe portion of the flue gas exhaust from Unit 8 of NRG's existing W.A. Parish Plant in Thompsons, Texas. The project would be designed to capture approximately 1.6 million tons of CO2per year from the Unit 8 exhaust that the facility would otherwise emit. The proposed CO2capture facility would be constructed within NRG's existing 4,880-acre W.A. Parish Plant in rural Fort Bend County near the small town of Thompsons, Texas. A new natural gas fired cogeneration plant, estimated to be 80 MW in size, would also be constructed on the plant property to produce the auxiliary power and steam needed for operation of the proposed CO2capture system.

The captured CO2would be compressed and transported via a new, approximately 80-mile long, 12-inch diameter underground pipeline to the existing West Ranch oil field in Jackson County, Texas, where it would be used for EOR and ultimately sequestered in geologic formations from 5,000 to 6,300 feet below ground surface. The proposed CO2pipeline route crosses sparsely populated rural and agricultural lands in Fort Bend, Wharton, and Jackson Counties and would be located along or within existing mowed and maintained utility rights-of-way for approximately 85 percent of its length. The West Ranch oil field is located near the town of Vanderbilt, Texas. Existing wells at the West Ranch oil field would be used (i.e., refurbished or deepened, as needed) to the extent practicable for the proposed project. Some new injection wells would be drilled in accordance with underground injection control regulations, and would be installed on existing well pads to the extent practicable.

Consistent with DOE's requirements under CCPI Round 3, NRG identified the following objectives for the Parish PCCS Project:

• Demonstration of advanced amine-based CO2absorption technology;

• Integration of a cogeneration plant into the project to meet the specific power and steam requirements of the CO2capture system;

• Demonstration of EOR with CO2sequestration in a nearby oil field; and

• Demonstration of a CO2monitoring program.

DOE prepared this EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321et seq.) and in compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations for NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500 through 1508) and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021). Projects considered by DOE for possible CCPI funding originate as a private party's (e.g., electric power industry) application submitted to DOE in response to requirements specified in CCPI funding opportunity announcements. DOE's decision is to either accept or reject the project as proposed, including the proposed technology and the selected sites. However, DOE may require mitigation measures to reduce a project's potential impacts. Consequently, DOE's consideration of reasonable alternatives is limited to the technically acceptable application and the no action-alternative for each selected project.

Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the proposed Parish PCCS Project. In the absence of DOE cost-shared funding, NRG could still elect to construct and operate the proposed project. Therefore, the DOE no-action alternative could result in one of two scenarios:

• The proposed Parish PCCS Project would not be built, or

• The proposed Parish PCCS Project would be built by NRG without benefit of DOE cost-shared funding.

DOE assumes that if NRG proceeded with project development in the absence of DOE cost-shared funding, the project would include the features, attributes, and impacts as described for the proposed project. However, without DOE participation, it is possible that the project would be canceled. Therefore, for the purposes of analysis in the draft EIS, the DOE no-action alternative is defined as the no-build alternative. This means that the project would not be built and environmental conditions would not change from the current baseline (i.e., no new construction, resource use, or CO2capture and storage would occur). Therefore, under the no-action alternative, the project technologies (i.e., large-scale CO2capture and geologic storage) may not be implemented in the near term. Consequently, timely commercialization of these technologies for large-scale, coal-fired electric generation facilities would be postponed and may not be realized. This scenario would not contribute to the CCPI goals to invest in the demonstration of advanced coal-based power generation technologies that capture the CO2emissions and either sequester them or put them to beneficial use.

The draft EIS analyzes the environmental consequences that may result from the proposed action and the no action alternative. Potential impacts identified during the scoping process and analyzed in the draft EIS relate to the following: Air quality and climate; greenhouse gases; geology; physiography and soils; groundwater; surface water; wetlands and floodplains; biological resources; cultural resources; land use and aesthetics; traffic and transportation; noise; materials and waste management; human health and safety; utilities; community services; socioeconomics; and environmental justice. DOE also intends to use the NEPA process and the analyses completed for the draft EIS to satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and DOE regulations regarding impacts to floodplains and wetlands.

DOE distributed copies of the draft EIS to Members of Congress; Native American tribal governments; federal, state, and local officials; and agencies, organizations, and individuals who may be interested or affected. Copies of the draft EIS are available for review at the George Memorial Library, 1001 Golfview Drive, Richmond, TX 77469; the Albert George Branch Library, 9230 Gene Street, Needville, TX 77461; the Wharton County Library, 1920 North Fulton Street, Wharton, TX 77488; and the Jackson County Memorial Library, 411 North Wells Street, Room 121, Edna, TX 77957. The draft EIS will also be available on the Internet athttp://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/nepa/index.htmlorhttp://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents.

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY:

This notice announces a meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee (EAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of thesemeetings be announced in theFederal Register.

Purpose of the Committee:The Electricity Advisory Committee (EAC) was established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, to provide advice to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, executing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and modernizing the nation's electricity delivery infrastructure.

Tentative Agenda:The meeting of the EAC is expected to include discussion of the activities of the Energy Storage Technologies Subcommittee, the Smart Grid Subcommittee, the Transmission Subcommittee, and discussions of EAC Work Force issues and special Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) topics.

The meeting agenda may change to accommodate EAC business. For EAC agenda updates, see the EAC Web site at:http://www.oe.energy.gov/eac.htm.

Public Participation:The EAC welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings. Individuals who wish to offer public comments at the EAC meeting may do so on Tuesday, October 16, 2012, but must register at the registration table in advance. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but is not expected to exceed three minutes. Anyone who is not able to attend the meeting, or for whom the allotted public comments time is insufficient to address pertinent issues with the EAC, is invited to send a written statement to Mr. Matthew Rosenbaum. You may submit comments, identified by “Electricity Advisory Committee Open Meeting”, by any of the following methods:

•Email: matthew.rosenbaum@hq.doe.gov.Include “Electricity Advisory Committee Open Meeting” in the subject line of the message.

•Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.Follow the instructions for submitting comments.Instructions:All submissions received must include the agency name and identifier. All comments received will be posted without change tohttp://www.oe.energy.gov/eac.htm,including any personal information provided.

The following electronic file formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you must submit one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. You must also explain the reasons why you believe the deleted information is exempt from disclosure. DOE is responsible for the final determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information regulations (10 CFR 1004.11).

Note:

Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE may be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE, therefore, encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by email. If comments are submitted by regular mail, the Department requests that they be accompanied by a CD or diskette containing electronic files of the submission.

Minutes:The minutes of the EAC meeting will be posted on the EAC Web page athttp://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac.They can also be obtained by contacting Mr. Matthew Rosenbaum at the address above.

Description:Filing to update Section 6.22.7 to be effective 10/14/2012.

Filed Date:9/13/12.

Accession Number:20120913-5075.

Comment Date:5 p.m. ET 9/25/12.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf.For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf.For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

Docket Numbers:EC12-140-000.

Applicants:LSP Energy Limited Partnership.

Description:Application for Order Authorizing the Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period of LSP Energy Limited Partnership.

Filed Date:9/14/12.

Accession Number:20120914-5105.

Comments Due:5 p.m. e.t. 10/5/12.

Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

Docket Numbers:EG12-110-000.

Applicants:Crawfordsville Energy, LLC.

Description:Notice of Self-Certification as an Exempt Wholesale Generator of Crawfordsville Energy, LLC.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76FR26900) EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0272, which is available for either public viewing online athttp://www.regulations.gov,or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system athttp://www.regulations.govto submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docketthat are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing athttp://www.regulations.govas EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go towww.regulations.gov.

ICR Status:This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually at a minimum.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 292 hours per response. “Burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Estimated Total Annual Cost:$6,489,166, which includes $5,746,349 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $742,817 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

There is a decrease in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The decrease is not due to any program changes. The most recently approved ICR (ICR 1899.06) estimated the total burden associated with the regulation by adding together the burdens and costs from the ICR for the existing standard (ICR 1899.05) and the revised standard (ICR 2335.02); portions of the rule requirements and burden activities in ICRs 1899.06 and 2335.02 overlap. This ICR updates all estimates and removes any duplicate burdens.

There is no capital/startup cost associated with this ICR, which is a decrease from the most recently approved ICR. There are also changes in the O&M costs in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. These changes occurred because the most recently-revised standard has been in effect for more than three years and the requirements are different during initial compliance as compared to on-going compliance. This ICR does not include the costs and burden for conducting initial compliance tests and notifications. Additionally, this ICR assumes that all sources have already purchased monitoring and testing equipment to comply with the standard.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76FR26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0274, which is available for public viewing online athttp://www.regulations.gov,or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system athttp://www.regulations.gov,to either submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing athttp://www.regulations.govas EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go towww.regulations.gov.

Title:NESHAP for the Wood Building Products Surface Coating Industry (Renewal).

ICR Numbers:EPA ICR Number 2034.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0510.

ICR Status:This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract:The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

Burden Statement:The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 109 hours per response. “Burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Estimated Total Annual Cost:$7,554,577, which includes $7,276,177 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $278,400 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates:There is no change in the burden hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.

There is an increase in costs for both the respondents and the Agency from the most recently approved ICR. The increase in burden cost is due to an increase in labor rates. This ICR uses updated labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate burden costs.

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Starting October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.

While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's electronic reporting site—https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp

The Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) debars Jonathan M. Slaughter from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”) for a period of three years. The Bureau takes this action to protect the E-Rate Program from waste, fraud, and abuse.

DATES:

Debarment commences on the date Mr. Jonathan M. Slaughter receives the debarment letter or October 22, 2012, whichever date comes first, for a period of three years.

The Bureau debarred Mr. Jonathan M. Slaughter from the schools and libraries service support mechanism for a period of three years pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8. Attached is the debarment letter, DA 12-1467, which was mailed to Mr. Slaughter and released on September 10, 2012. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site athttp://www.fcc.gov.The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating inspection and copying during regular business hours at the contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via emailhttp://www.bcpiweb.com.

The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) hereby notifies you that, pursuant to Section 54.8 of its rules, you are prohibited from participating in activities associated with or relating to the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (E-Rate program) for three years from either the date of your receipt of this Notice of Debarment, or of its publication in theFederal Register, whichever is earlier in time (Debarment Date).1

On May 9, 2012, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) sent you a Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceeding (Notice of Suspension)2that was published in theFederal Registeron May 24, 2012.3The Notice of Suspension suspended you from participating in activities associated with or relating to the E-Rate program. It also described the basis for initiating debarment proceedings against you, the applicable debarment procedures, and the effect of debarment.

As discussed in the Notice of Suspension, on September 29, 2011, you pled guilty to converting approximately $892,000 in E-Rate checks, payable to six schools and 14 school districts located in 13 states, to your personal use while you were the owner and president of E-Rate Consulting Services, LLC (ECS).4Between May 2006 and January 2009, you deposited those E-Rate funds into your ECS bank account for your personal use instead of transmitting them to your clients.5Pursuant to Section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules, your conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program is the basis for this debarment.6

In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you were required to file with the Commission any opposition to your suspension or its scope, or to your proposed debarment or its scope, no later than 30 calendar days from either the date of your receipt of the Notice of Suspension or of its publication in theFederal Register, whichever date occurred first.7The Commission did not receive any such opposition from you.

747 C.F.R. §§ 54.8 (e)(3), (4). Any opposition had to be filed no later than June 13, 2012.

For the foregoing reasons, you are debarred from participating in activities associated with or related to the E-Rate program for three years from the Debarment Date.8During this debarment period, you are excluded from participating in any activities associated with or related to the E-Rate program, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the E-Rate program, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the E-Rate program.9

In accordance with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq., the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the PRA. On June 25, 2012 (77 FR 37906), the FDIC solicited public comment for a 60-day period on renewal of the following information collection: Applicant Background Questionnaire (OMB No. 3064-0138). No comments were received. Therefore, the FDIC hereby gives notice of submission of its request for renewal to OMB for review.

DATES:

Comments must be submitted on or before October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

•http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

•Email: comments@fdic.govInclude the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

•Hand Delivery:Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leneta G. Gregorie, at the FDIC address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Proposal To Renew the Following Currently Approved Collection of Information

Title:Applicant Background Questionnaire.

OMB Number:3064-0138.

Form No.:FDIC 2100/14.

Form Number:FDIC 2100/14.

Frequency of Response:On occasion.

Affected Public:FDIC job applicants who are not current FDIC employees.

Estimated Number of Respondents:30,000.

Estimated Time per Response:3 minutes.

Total Annual Burden:1,500 hours.

General Description of Collection:The FDIC Applicant Background Questionnaire is completed voluntarily by FDIC job applicants who are not current FDIC employees. Responses to questions on the survey provide information on gender, age, disability, race/national origin, and to the applicant's source of vacancy announcement information. Data is used by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion and the Human Resources Branch to evaluate the effectiveness of various recruitment methods used by the FDIC to ensure that the agency meets workforce diversity objectives.

Request for Comment

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.All comments will become a matter of public record.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 17th day of September 2012.Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.Robert E. Feldman,Executive Secretary.[FR Doc. 2012-23273 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6714-01-PFEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATIONUpdate to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or ManagerAGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION:

Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.

SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in theFederal Register) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of theFederal Register(57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site atwww.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.htmlor contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is announcing the Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) members it has selected for the 2010 seventh round review cycle under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation. This notice also prescribes the deadline by which Bank members selected for review must submit Community Support Statements to FHFA.

DATES:

Bank members selected for the review cycle under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to FHFA on or before November 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Bank members selected for the 2010 seventh round review cycle under the FHFA's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to FHFA either by hard-copy mail at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Ninth Floor, Housing Mission and Goals (DHMG), 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or by electronic mail athmgcommunitysupportprogram@fhfa.gov.

Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service Bank members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances.See12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(1). The regulations promulgated by FHFA must take into account factors such as the Bank member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA), 12 U.S.C. 2901et seq.,and record of lending to first-time homebuyers.See12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(2). Pursuant to section 10(g) of the Bank Act, FHFA has promulgated a community support requirements regulation that establishes standards a Bank member must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances, and review criteria FHFA must apply in evaluating a member's community support performance.See12 CFR part 1290. The regulation includes standards and criteria for the two statutory factors—CRA performance and record of lending to first-time homebuyers. 12 CFR 1290.3. Only members subject to the CRA must meet the CRA standard. 12 CFR 1290.3(b). All members, including those not subject to CRA, must meet the first-time homebuyer standard. 12 CFR 1290.3(c).

Under the rule, FHFA selects approximately one-eighth of the members in each Bank district for community support review each calendar quarter. 12 CFR 1290.2(a). FHFA will not review an institution's community support performance until it has been a Bank member for at least one year. Selection for review is not, nor should it be construed as, any indication of either the financial condition or the community support performance of the member.

Each Bank member selected for review must complete a Community Support Statement and submit it to FHFA by the November 5, 2012 deadline prescribed in this notice. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(1)(ii) and (c). On or before October 5, 2012, each Bank will notify the members in its district that have been selected for the 2010 seventh round community support review cycle that they must complete and submit toFHFA by the deadline a Community Support Statement. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(2)(i). The member's Bank will provide a blank Community Support Statement Form (OMB No. 2590-0005), which also is available on the FHFA's Web site:http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/2924/FHFAForm060.pdf.Upon request, the member's Bank also will provide assistance in completing the Community Support Statement.

FHFA has selected the following members for the 2010 seventh round community support review cycle:

To encourage the submission of public comments on the community support performance of Bank members, on or before October 5, 2012, each Bank will notify its Advisory Council and nonprofit housing developers, community groups, and other interested parties in its district of the membersselected for community support review in the 2010 seventh round review cycle. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(2)(ii). In reviewing a member for community support compliance, FHFA will consider any public comments it has received concerning the member. 12 CFR 1290.2(d). To ensure consideration by FHFA, comments concerning the community support performance of members selected for the 2010 seventh round review cycle must be delivered to FHFA, either by hard-copy mail at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Ninth Floor, Housing Mission and Goals (DHMG), 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or by electronic mail tohmgcommunitysupportprogram@fhfa.govon or before the November 5, 2012 deadline for submission of Community Support Statements.

On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES:

Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by FR Y-12 or FR Y-12A, by any of the following methods:

All public comments are available from the Board's web site atwww.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfmas submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays.

Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/reportforms/review.cfmor may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Proposal to Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, Without Revision, the Following Reports

Report title:Consolidated Bank Holding Company Report of Equity Investments in Nonfinancial Companies, and the Annual Report of Merchant Banking Investments Held for an Extended Period.

General description of report:This collection of information is mandatory pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.1844(c)) and Section 10 of the Home Owners Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)). The FR Y-12 data are not considered confidential, however, a BHC or SLHC may request confidential treatment pursuant to Sections (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). The FR Y-12A data are considered confidential pursuant to sections (b)(4) and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(8)).

Abstract:The FR Y-12 collects information from certain domestic BHCs and SLHCs on their equity investments in nonfinancial companies on four schedules: Type of Investments, Type of Security, Type of Entity within the Banking Organization, and Nonfinancial Investment Transactions during Reporting Period. The FR Y-12A collects data from financial holding companies (FHCs) which hold merchant banking investments that are approaching the end of the holding period permissible under Regulation Y. These data serve as an important risk-monitoring device for FHCs active in this business line by allowing supervisory staff to monitor an FHC's activity between review dates. They also serve as an early warning mechanism to identify FHCs whose activities in this area are growing rapidly and therefore warrant special supervisory attention.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 17, 2012.Robert deV. Frierson,Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 2012-23268 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6210-01-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESMeeting of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and ServicesAGENCY:

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY:

This notice announces the public meeting of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services (Advisory Council). Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). The Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services provides advice on how to prevent or reduce the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on people with the disease and their caregivers. The Advisory Council will discuss recommendations made in May, as well as ideas and topics for future recommendations.

DATES:

Meeting Date:October 15, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 4:30pm EDT.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 800, Washington, DC 20201.

Comments:Time is allocated on the agenda to hear public comments. In lieu of oral comments, formal written comments may be submitted for the record to Helen Lamont, Ph.D., OASPE, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 424E, Washington, DC 20201. Comments may also be sent tonapa@hhs.gov. Those submitting written comments should identify themselves and any relevant organizational affiliations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen Lamont, Ph.D. (202) 690-7996,Helen.lamont@hhs.gov. Note: Seating may be limited. Those wishing to attend the meeting must send an email tonapa@hhs.govand put “October 15 meeting attendance” in the Subject line by Friday, October 5, 2012, so that their names may be put on a list of expected attendees and forwarded to the security officers at the Department of Health and Human Services. Attendees who wish to make public comments should include that information in the email. Any interested member of the public who is a non-U.S. citizen should include this information at the time of registration to ensure that the appropriate security procedure to gain entry to the building is carried out. Although the meeting is open to the public, procedures governing security and the entrance to Federal buildings may change without notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Topics of the Meeting: The Advisory Council will discuss recommendations made in May, as well as ideas and topics for future recommendations.

Procedure and Agenda:This meeting is open to the public.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 11225; Section 2(e)(3) of the National Alzheimer's Project Act. The panel is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

Status:Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people.

Purpose:The Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by delegation, the Director, CDC and Administrator, NCEH/ATSDR, are authorized under Section 301(42 U.S.C. 241) and Section 311(42 U.S.C. 243) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, to: (1) Conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of research, investigations,experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes,diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical andmental diseases and other impairments; (2) assist states andtheir political subdivisions in the prevention of infectiousdiseases and other preventable conditions and in the promotion ofhealth and well being; and (3) train state and local personnel inhealth work. The BSC, NCEH/ATSDR provides advice and guidance tothe Secretary, HHS; the Director, CDC and Administrator, ATSDR;and the Director, NCEH/ATSDR, regarding program goals,objectives, strategies, and priorities in fulfillment of theagency's mission to protect and promote people's health. Theboard provides advice and guidance that will assist NCEH/ATSDR inensuring scientific quality, timeliness, utility, anddissemination of results. The board also provides guidance tohelp NCEH/ATSDR work more efficiently and effectively with itsvarious constituents and to fulfill its mission in protectingAmerica's health.

Matters To Be Discussed:The agenda items for the BSC Meeting on October 16-17, 2012, will include NCEH/ATSDR Office of the Director updates: ATSDR Reorganization, Asthma, Lead and Healthy Homes Program and NCEH/ATSDR Strategic Planning; update on the Lead Program; presentation on surveillance and epidemiology after emergency events; and updates by BSC Federal Expert members on current activities at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Energy, National Institute for EnvironmentalHealth Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Supplementary Information:The public comment period is scheduledon Tuesday, October 16, 2012, from 3:15 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., andon Wednesday, October 17, 2012, from 10 a.m. until 10:15 a.m.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has beendelegated the authority to signFederal Registernoticespertaining to announcements of meetings and other committeemanagement activities for both the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry.

In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

1.Type of Information Collection Request:Extension without change of a currently approved collection.Title of Information Collection:Deficiencies and Plan of Correction (CMS-2567) and Supporting Regulations contained in 42 CFR 488.18, 488.26, and 488.28.Use:Section 1864(a) of the Social Security Act requires that the Secretary use state survey agencies to conduct surveys to determine whether health care facilities meet Medicare and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments participation requirements. The CMS-2567 form is the means by which the survey findings are documented. This section of the law further requires that compliance findings resulting from these surveys be made available to the public within 90 days of such surveys. The CMS-2567 form is the vehicle for this disclosure. The regulations at 42 CFR 488.18 require that state survey agencies document all deficiency findings on a statement of deficiencies and plan of correction, which is the CMS-2567. 42 CFR 488.26 and 488.28 further delineate how compliance findings must be recorded and that CMS prescribed forms must be used.

The form is also used by health care facilities to document their plan of correction and by CMS, the states, facilities, purchasers, consumers, advocacy groups, and the public as a source of information about quality of care and facility compliance.

2.Type of Information Collection Request:New collection;Title of Information Collection:Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Experience of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD): Impact of the ESRD Prospective Payment System (PPS) and ESRD Quality Incentive Program (QIP) ;Use:The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) required the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit to Congress a report detailing the elements and features for the design and implementation of a bundled End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, specifying that such a system should include the bundling of separately billed drugs, clinical laboratory tests, and other items “to maximum extent feasible”. The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) directed the Secretary of HHS to implement a payment system under which a single payment is made to a provider of services or a renal dialysis facility for renal dialysis services in lieu of any other payment. The ESRD PPS combines composite rate dialysis services with separately billable services under a single payment adjusted to reflect patient differences in resource needs or case-mix. The MIPPA also stipulated the development of quality incentives for the ESRD program. CMS has established the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program (ESRD QIP) to address this provision of the legislation.

In order to assess the impact of the final rule (76 FR 627) on ESRD beneficiary experiences, satisfaction, and health outcomes, CMS is requesting OMB approval to obtain input on the effect of the final rule on our ESRD beneficiaries. The purpose of this data collection effort is to assess beneficiary satisfaction and experience of care in terms of access to services, quality of care, outcomes, and cost. This will be measured through telephone surveys with ESRD beneficiaries and through interviews with key stakeholders in the renal health care community. The information obtained from both the beneficiary respondents and key stakeholders will be used to provide an initial reporting of the ESRD PPS/QIP's effects on beneficiary satisfaction and experience of care and to inform the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) of the impact of the ESRD PPS/QIP on patient satisfaction and experience of care, including unintended consequences, for consideration of future modification of the programs.

Subsequent to the publication of the 60-dayFederal Registernotice (77 FR 27777), the annual burden hours have decreased from 1,287 to 662. Early cognitive interview findings of the ESRD Beneficiary Survey submitted during the 60 day notice exhibited respondent complaints that the survey was too long and some participants had to hang up early because they were feeling sick. Medicare beneficiaries with end stage renal disease (ESRD) are very sick and unable to remain cognitively aware for 30 minutes. The ESRD Beneficiary Survey was significantly shortened so that the time necessary to interview a single participant was reduced from 30 to 15 minutes.Form Number:CMS-10425 (OCN: 0938-New);Frequency:Yearly;AffectedPublic:Individuals.Number of Respondents:2,540.Number of Responses:2,540.Total Annual Hours:662. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Steve Blackwell at 410-786-6852. For all other issues call 410-786-1326.)

3.Type of Information Collection Request:Extension of a currently approved collection;Title of Information Collection:Medicare Fee-for-Service Prepayment Medical Review;Use:The information required under this collection is requested by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Medicare contractors request the information from providers or suppliers submitting claims for payment from the Medicare program when data analysis indicates aberrant billing patterns or other information which may present a vulnerability to the Medicare program. In addition, we are specifically soliciting public comments on the information collection burden that is associated with the currently approved information collection request.Form Number:CMS-10417 (OMB 0938-0969);Frequency:Occasionally;Affected Public:Private Sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions);Number of Respondents:2,220,434;Total Annual Responses:2,220,434;Total Annual Hours:1,105,560. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Debbie Skinner at 410-786-7480. For all other issues call 410-786-1326.)

4.Type of Information Collection Request:Extension of a currently approved collection;Title:Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) Authorization to Share Personal Health Information;Use:On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act), Public Law 111-148. Section 1101 of the law establishes a “temporary high risk health insurance pool program” (which has been named the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, or PCIP) to provide health insurance coverage to currently uninsured individuals with pre-existing conditions. The law authorizes HHS to carry out the program directly or through contracts with states or private, non-profit entities.

Reapproval of this package is being requested as a result of CMS, in its administration of the PCIP program, serving as a covered entity under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Without a valid authorization, the PCIP program is unable to disclose information, with respect to an applicant or enrollee, about the status of an application, enrollment, premium billing or claim, to individuals of the applicant's or enrollee's choosing. The HIPAA Authorization Form has been modeled after CMS' Medicare HIPAA Authorization Form (OMB control number 0938-0930) and is used by applicants or enrollees to designate someone else to communicate with PCIP about their protected health information (PHI).

Unless permitted or required by law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule (§ 164.508) prohibits CMS' PCIP program (a HIPAA covered entity) from disclosing an individual's protected health information without a valid authorization. In order to be valid, an authorization must include specified core elements and statements.

CMS will make available to PCIP applicants and enrollees a standard, valid authorization to enable beneficiaries to communicate with PCIP about their personal health information. This is a critical tool because the population the PCIP program serves is comprised of individuals with pre-existing conditions who may be incapacitated and need an advocate to help them apply for or receive benefits from the program. This standard authorization will simplify the process of requesting information disclosure for beneficiaries and minimize the response time for the PCIP program.

Each individual will be asked to complete the form which will include providing the individual's name, PCIP account number (if known), date of birth, what personal health information they agree to share, the length of time the individual agrees their personal health information can be shared, the names and addresses of the third party the individual wants PCIP to share their personal health information with, and an attestation that the individual is giving PCIP permission to share their personal health information with the third party listed in the form. This completed form will be submitted to the PCIP benefits administrator, GEHA, which contracts with CMS.

We estimate that it will take approximately 15 minutes per applicant to complete and submit a HIPAA Authorization Form to the PCIP program.

The federally-run PCIP program operates in 23 states plus the District of Columbia and receives an average of 35,000 enrollment applications per year. To estimate the number of PCIP applicants and enrollees who may complete an authorization, we looked at the percentage of individuals who request an authorization in Medicare as a baseline. Medicare estimates 3% of its population will submit an authorization per year. However, since the PCIP program caters to an exclusive population comprised of individuals who have one or more pre-existing conditions, we believe it is likely we could receive double the percentage estimated by Medicare. Accordingly, PCIP estimates 6% (or 2,100) of its applicants and enrollees may submit an authorization per year.

It is estimated that up to 2,100 applicants and enrollees may submit an authorization annually. There is no cost to PCIP beneficiaries to request, complete, submit, or have the authorization form processed by PCIP. It should take approximately 15 minutes for a beneficiary to complete the authorization form. 15 minutes multiplied by 2,100 beneficiaries equals 525 hours.Form Number:CMS-10428 (OCN#: 0938-1161);Frequency:Reporting—Once;Affected Public:individuals or households;Number of Respondents:2,100;Total Annual Responses:2,100;Total Annual Hours:525. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Laura Dash at 410-786-8623. For all other issues call 410-786-1326.)

5.Type of Information Collection Request:New collection;Title of InformationCollection:Health Insurance Common Claims Form and Supporting Regulations at 42 CFR Part 424, Subpart C;Use:The Form CMS-1500 answers the needs of many health insurers. It is the basic form prescribed by CMS for the Medicare program for claims from physicians and suppliers. The Medicaid State Agencies, CHAMPUS/TriCare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plans, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and several private health plans also use it; it is the de facto standard “professional” claim form.

Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS-1500 and the CMS-1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS-1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS-1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid).

However, as the CMS-1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use bybeneficiaries when they file their own claims. Therefore, the CMS-1490S (Patient's Request for Medicare Payment) was explicitly developed for easy use by beneficiaries who file their own claims. The form can be obtained from any Social Security office or Medicare carrier.

Most recently, the National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) has revised the CMS-1500. The NUCC began revision work on the 1500 Claim Form, version 02/12 in 2009. The goal of this work was to align the paper form with some of the changes in the electronic Health Care Claim: Professional (837), 005010X222 Technical Report Type 3 (5010) and 005010X222A1 Technical Report Type 3 (5010A1). During the revision work, consideration was given to different approaches to revising the form. The NUCC decided to proceed with making “minor changes” to the current form, which was defined as no physical changes to the existing form lines or underlying layout of the form. Once the CMS-1500 (02/12) has been approved, the CMS-1500 (08/05) will be discontinued after a form runoff period during which both the CMS-1500 (08/05) and the CMS-1500 (02/12) can be used.Form Number:CMS-1500(02/12), CMS-1490-S (OMB#: 0938-New);Frequency:Reporting—On occasion;Affected Public:State, Local, or Tribal Government, Business or other-for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions;Number of Respondents:1,448,346;Total Annual Responses:988,005,045;Total Annual Hours:21,418,336. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Claudette Sikora at 410-786-5618. For all other issues call 410-786-1326.)

6.Type of Information Collection Request:Reinstatement without change of a previouslyapproved collection;Title of Information Collection:Health Insurance Common Claims Form and Supporting Regulations at 42 CFR Part 424, Subpart C;Form Number:CMS-1500(08/05), CMS-1490-S (OMB#: 0938-0999);Use:The Form CMS-1500 answers the needs of many health insurers. It is the basic form prescribed by CMS for the Medicare program for claims from physicians and suppliers. The Medicaid State Agencies, CHAMPUS/TriCare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plans, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and several private health plans also use it; it is the de facto standard “professional” claim form.

Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS-1500 and the CMS-1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS-1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS-1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other Federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid).

However, as the CMS-1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use by beneficiaries when they file their own claims. Therefore, the CMS-1490S (Patient's Request for Medicare Payment) was explicitly developed for easy use by beneficiaries who file their own claims. The form can be obtained from any Social Security office or Medicare carrier.Frequency:Reporting—On occasion;Affected Public:State, Local, or Tribal Government, Business or other-for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions;Number of Respondents:1,448,346;Total Annual Responses:988,005,045;Total Annual Hours:21,418,336. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Claudette Sikora at 410-786-5618. For all other issues call 410-786-1326.)

To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on October 22, 2012.OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: CMS Desk Officer,Fax Number: (202) 395-6974,Email:OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov.

Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

DATES:

Comments are to be submitted on or before December 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center atwww.msc.fema.govfor comparison.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online atwww.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets/2010/srp_fs.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center atwww.msc.fema.govfor comparison.

Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

DATES:

Comments are to be submitted on or before December 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center atwww.msc.fema.govfor comparison.

FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online atwww.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets/2010/srp_fs.pdf.

The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center atwww.msc.fema.govfor comparison.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

60-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.

SUMMARY:

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products (CBP Form 3311). This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).

DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before November 20, 2012, to be assured of consideration.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title:Declaration of Free entry of Returned American Products.

OMB Number:1651-0011.

Form Number:CBP Form 3311.

Abstract:CBP Form 3311,Declaration for Free Entry of Returned American Products,is used by importers and their agents when duty-free entry is claimed for a shipment of returned American products under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States. This form serves as a declaration that the goods are American made and that (a) They have not been advanced in value or improved in condition while abroad, (b) were not previously entered under a Temporary Importation Under Bond provision, and (c) drawback was never claimed and/or paid. CBP Form 3311 is authorized by 19 CFR 10.1, 10.5, 10.6, 10.66, 10.67, 12.41, 123.4, 142.11, 143.21, 143.23, 143.25 and is accessible at.http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/CBP_Form_3311.pdf.

Action:CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to CBP Form 3311.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order inNational Coalition for the Homelessv.Veterans Administration,No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address(including zip code), the date of publication in theFederal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Subpart O, “Well Control and Production Safety Training.” This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the revised paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.

DATES:

You must submit comments by October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email (OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov) directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1014-0008). Please provide a copy of your comments to BSEE by any of the means below.

•Electronically:go tohttp://www.regulations.gov.In the entry titled, “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter BSEE-2012-0006 then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view all related materials. We will post all comments.

Nicole Mason, Regulations Development Branch, (703) 787-1605, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go tohttp://www.reginfo.gov(select Information Collection Review, Currently Under Review).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title:30 CFR 250, Subpart O, Well Control and Production Safety Training.

OMB Control Number:1014-0008.

Abstract:The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331et seq.and 43 U.S.C. 1801et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease, right-of-use and easement, and pipeline right-of-way. Operations in the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well trained personnel using technology, precautions, and other techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstructions to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health.” To carry out these responsibilities, BSEE has issued rules governing training requirements for certain personnel working on the OCS at 30 CFR part 250, subpart O, Well Control and Production Safety Training. Responses are mandatory or required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. The BSEE protects information considered proprietary according to 30 CFR250.197,Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection,and 30 CFR part 252,Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Information Program.

The BSEE will use the information collected under subpart O regulations to ensure that workers on the OCS are properly trained with the necessary skills to perform their jobs in a safe and pollution-free manner. In some instances, BSEE will conduct oral interviews of offshore employees to evaluate the effectiveness of a company's training program. We do the oral interviews to gauge how effectively the companies are implementing their own training program. The BSEE will use the interview form and keep the information internally. This information is necessary to verify training compliance with the requirements.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:The estimated annual hour burden for this information collection is a total of 2,919 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Annual burden hours1503(a), (c)Develop training plans. Note: Existing lessees/respondents already have training plans developed. This number reflects development of plans for any new lessees10522101503(d)(1)Upon request, provide BSEE with copies of training documentation for personnel involved in well control, deepwater well control, or production safety operations within the past 5 years101301,3001503(d)(2)Upon request, provide BSEE with a copy of your training plan20306001507(b)Employee oral interview conducted by BSEE15005001507(c), (d); 1508; 1509Written testing conducted by BSEE or authorized representativeNot considered information collection under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(7).01510(b)Revise training plan and submit to BSEE605300250.1500-1510General departure or alternative compliance requests not specifically covered elsewhere in subpart O339Total Hour Burden6702,919

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden:We have identified no non-hour cost burdens associated with the collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement:The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments:Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the collection is necessary or useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on April 16, 2012, we published aFederal Registernotice (77 FR 22602) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 250 regulations. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We received one comment in response to theFederal Registernotice, but it was not germane to the paperwork burden of this collection.

Public Availability of Comments:Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Lake County Department of Public Works (applicant), for an incidental take permit (ITP) #TE83706A-0. The applicant requests a 5-year ITP under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request public comment on the permit application and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.

DATES:

To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.

In-person drop-off:You may drop off information during regular business hours at the above office address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email:erin_gawera@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.) and our implementing Federal regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). However, under limited circumstances, we issue permits to authorize incidental take—i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.

Applicant's Proposal

The applicant is requesting take of approximately 0.27 ac of occupied sand skink foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of a roadway improvement, and seeks a 5-year permit. The 3.95-ac project is located on parcel #09-23-26-000400002700 within Sections 09 and 10, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the sand skink by the purchase of 0.54 mitigation credits within the Tiger Creek Conservation Bank.

Our Preliminary Determination

We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we determined that the ITP is a “low-effect” project and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

Next Steps

We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.). If we determine that the application meets these requirements, we will issue ITP #TE83706A-0. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue the permit to the applicant.

Public Comments

If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods inADDRESSES.

Public Availability of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Authority

We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Michael Richardson (applicant), for renewal of an incidental take permit (ITP; #TE151087-0) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request public comment on the permit application and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.

DATES:

To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.

In-person drop-off:You may drop off information during regular business hours at the above office address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erin M. Gawera, telephone: 904-731-3121; email:erin_gawera@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.) and our implementing Federal regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). However, under limited circumstances, we issue permits to authorize incidental take—i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.

Applicant's Proposal

The applicant has been approved for take of approximately 2.2 acres (ac) of Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)—occupied habitat incidental to construction of an industrial facility, and seeks a 10-year extension on an existing permit. The 3.21-ac project is located on a 3.21-ac property (parcel numbers 25-36-23-50-00000.0-0004.00 and 25-36-23-50-00000.0-0005.00), within Section 23, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Rockledge, Brevard County, Florida. The applicant's HCP describes the mitigation and minimization measures the applicant proposes to address the effects of the project to the Florida scrub-jay.

Our Preliminary Determination

We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we determined that the ITP is a low-effect project and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). The notice for this permit was published in theFederal Registeron May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26407), and the ITP was issued on June 25, 2007. A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

Next Steps

We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP extension application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.). If we determine that the application meets these requirements, we will issue the extension of the ITP. In June 2007 we determined issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP extension. If the requirements are met, we will issue the permit extension to the applicant.

Public Comments

If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods inADDRESSES.

Public Availability of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Authority

We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended; and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay,Roseburg, and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District in Oregon and the Forest Service Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National Forests, Oregon, propose to amend their land management plans to make provision for the proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (Project) if the Project is authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission). The BLM also proposes to respond to Pacific Connector LP's application for a right-of-way grant for the Project to occupy Federal lands. The FERC is the lead agency for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (FERC Docket PF12-17), which includes the analysis for possible land use plan amendments.

DATES:

This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the BLM and the Forest Service will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies concerning amendment of BLM and Forest Service land management plans and possible issuance of the right-of-way grant by the BLM. Your input will help the BLM, the Forest Service, and Commission staffs determine what issues to evaluate in the EIS that FERC is preparing for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. Please note that your comments must be received by October 29, 2012, to receive full consideration in the preparation of the EIS.

You may submit comments either in written form or orally or both. You may submit your comments orally or in writing at public scoping meetings announced in the FERC's Notice of Intent published on August 13, 2012 (77 FR 48138), or at three additional public scoping meetings scheduled by the FERC as lead agency, in cooperation with the BLM and the Forest Service at the following times and locations:

The FERC is the lead agency for preparation of the EIS for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline so written comments on actions by the BLM or the Forest Service must be submitted through the FERC's comment process and within the timelines described in this notice so that they may be considered in preparation of the EIS.

There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the FERC. In all instances, please reference the docket number for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PF12-17-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 orefiling@ferc.gov.

•Web site: www.ferc.gov.Use the eComment feature under the Documents & Filings link for brief, text-only comments on actions proposed by the BLM and the Forest Service. Use the eFiling feature under the Documents and Filings link for providing comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select, “Comment on a Filing.”

Any comments submitted directly to the BLM and the Forest Service will be forwarded to the FERC for inclusion in the public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that the entire text of your comments—including your personal identifying information—would be publicly available through the FERC elibrary system.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holly Orr, BLM National Project Manager, 28910 Hwy 20 West, Hines, OR 97738; telephone: 541-573-4501; fax: 541-573-4411; email:horr@blm.gov.Wes Yamamoto, Forest Service Project Manager, Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger Station, 27812 Tiller Trail Highway, Tiller, OR 97484; telephone: 541-825-3100; fax: 541-825-3110; email:wyamamoto@fs.fed.us.Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 313 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act requires the Forest Service and the BLM to cooperate with the Commission when considering aspects of an application for Federal authorization of natural gas pipelines. Section 372 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the Secretary of Energy in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and Defense to coordinate all applicable Federal authorizations and environmental reviews relating to a proposed or existing utility facility, including an agreement to prepare a single environmental review document to be used as the basis for all Federal authorization decisions.

On Monday, August 13, 2012, the FERC published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the planned Jordan Cove Liquefaction and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline projects in theFederal Register(77 FR 48138). The BLM and the Forest Service are cooperating agencies for preparation of this EIS. The EIS prepared by the FERC will address impacts of the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline that occur on lands administered by the BLM and the Forest Service, including those associated with proposed land management plan amendments and possible issuance of the right-of-way grant.

The BLM and the Forest Service will consider the FERC EIS in their evaluation of proposed land management plan amendments. The BLM will also consider adoption of the FERC EIS in its evaluation of, and response to, the application for a right-of-way grant by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline LP.

The BLM and the Forest Service have identified possible land management plan amendments that may be necessary to make provision for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. The BLM and the Forest Service have jurisdiction by law for amendment of their land management plans. Unless otherwise noted in the description of the Proposed Action, these amendments would only apply to the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, and they would be implemented only if FERC authorizes the construction of the Project. The BLM has jurisdiction by law for response to the application by the proponents of the proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline for a right-of-way grant to occupy Federal lands if the Commission authorizes the Project.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Forest Management Act require that actions on these Federal lands be consistent with the land management plans for the administrative units where the action would occur. In order for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline to proceed, the BLM must issue a right-of-way grant for occupancy of Federal lands by theProject. The Forest Service must concur with issuance of the right-of-way grant for areas where the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline crosses National Forest System lands. Proposed amendments of BLM and Forest Service land management plans would be implemented only if the Commission authorizes the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.

Additional information about the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 866-208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). On the FERC Web page, go to Documents & Filings and click on the eLibrary link. Then click on General Search, and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF12-17). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFercOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll free at 866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact 202-502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go towww.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Finally, public meetings or site visits hosted by the Commission will be posted on the Commission's calendar located atwww.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspxalong with other related information.

Purpose and Need for Action by the BLM and the Forest Service

The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the BLM is to respond to a right-of way grant application originally submitted by Pacific Connector on April 17, 2006, to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a natural gas pipeline that crosses lands and facilities administered by the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service. In addition, there is a need for the BLM and the Forest Service to consider amending affected district and forest land management plans to make provision for the Pacific Connector right-of-way.

Proposed Actions of the BLM and the Forest Service

The proposed action of the BLM and the Forest Service has two components. First, the BLM would amend its Resource Management Plans (RMP) for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts, and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, while the Forest Service would amend its Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for the Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National Forests to make provisions for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. Second, in accordance with 43 CFR 2884.26, the BLM would issue a right-of-way grant in response to Pacific Connector's application for the Project to occupy Federal lands, with the written concurrence of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. Each agency may submit specific stipulations, including mitigations, for inclusion in the right-of-way grant related to lands, facilities, and easements within their respective jurisdictions.

Amendment of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Land Management Plans

BLM/FS-1, Site-Specific Waiver of Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Species on the BLM Coos Bay District, Roseburg District, Medford District, and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District RMPs, and the Umpqua National Forest, Rogue River National Forest, and Winema National Forest LRMPs:Applicable BLM district RMPs and Forest Service national forest LRMPs would be amended to exempt certain known sites within the area of the proposed Pacific Connector right-of-way grant from the Management Recommendations required by the 2001 “Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines,” as modified in July 2011. For known sites within the proposed right-of-way that cannot be avoided, the amendment would specify that the 2001 Management Recommendations for protection of known sites of Survey and Manage species would not apply. For known sites located outside the proposed right-of-way but with an overlapping protection buffer, only that portion of the buffer within the right-of-way would be exempt from the protection requirements of the Management Recommendations under the amendment. The Management Recommendations would remain in effect for that portion of the protection buffer that is outside of the right-of-way. The proposed amendment would not exempt the BLM or the Forest Service from the requirements of the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision, as modified, to maintain species persistence for affected Survey and Manage species within the range of the northern spotted owl. This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

Amendments of BLM Resource Management Plans

BLM-1, Site-Specific Exemption of Requirement to Protect Marbled Murrelet Habitat on the BLM Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts:The Coos Bay District and Roseburg District RMPs would be amended to waive the requirements to protect contiguous existing and recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets within the Pacific Connector right-of-way that is within 0.5 miles of occupied marbled murrelet sites, as mapped by the BLM. This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

BLM-2, Site Specific Exemption of Requirement To Retain Habitat in Known Owl Activity Centers on the BLM Roseburg District:The RMP for the Roseburg District would be amended to exempt the Pacific Connector pipeline project from the requirement to retain habitat in Known Owl Activity Centers at three locations. This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

BLM-3, Reallocation of Matrix Lands to Late Successional Reserves:The Roseburg District RMP would be amended to change the designation of approximately 409 acres from the Matrix land allocations to the Late Successional Reserves (LSR) land allocation in Sections 32 and 34, Township (T.) 29 ½ South (S.), Range (R.) 7 West (W.); and Section 1, T. 30 S., R. 7 W.,Willamette Meridian (W.M.), Oregon. This change in land allocation is proposed to mitigate the potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector pipeline project on LSRs in the Roseburg District. The amendment would change future management direction for the lands reallocated from matrix lands to LSR.

BLM-4, Reallocation of Matrix Lands to Late Successional Reserves:The Coos Bay District RMP would be amended tochange the designation of approximately 454 acres from the matrix land allocations to the LSR land allocation in Sections 19 and 29 of T. 28 S., R. 10 W., W. M., Oregon. This change in land allocation is proposed to mitigate the potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector pipeline project on LSRs in the Coos Bay District. The amendment would change future management direction for the lands reallocated from matrix lands to LSR.

Amendment of the Umpqua National Forest LRMP

NF-1, Site-Specific Amendment To Allow Removal of Effective Shade on Perennial Streams:The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the Standards and Guidelines for Fisheries (Umpqua National Forest LRMP, page IV-33, Forest-Wide) to allow the removal of effective shading vegetation where perennial streams are crossed by the Pacific Connector right-of-way. This change would potentially affect an estimated total of 3 acres of effective shading vegetation at approximately five perennial stream crossings in the East Fork of Cow Creek subwatershed from pipeline mileposts (MP) 109 to 110 in Sections 16 and 21, T. 32 S., R. 2 W., W. M., Oregon. This is a site-specific amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

UNF-2, Site-Specific Amendment To Allow Utility Corridors in Riparian Areas:The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change prescriptions C2-II (LRMP IV-173) and C2-IV (LRMP IV-177) to allow the Pacific Connector pipeline route to run parallel to the East Fork of Cow Creek for approximately 0.1 mile between about pipeline MPs 109.5 and 109.6 in Section 21, T. 32 S., R. 2 W., W. M., Oregon. This change would potentially affect approximately 1 acre of riparian vegetation along the East Fork of Cow Creek. This is a site-specific amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

UNF-3, Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in All Management Areas:The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive limitations on the area affected by detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way. Standards and Guidelines for Soils (LRMP page IV-67) requires that not more than 20 percent of the project area have detrimental compaction, displacement, or puddling after completion of a project. This is a site-specific amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

UNF-4, Reallocation of Matrix Lands to Late Successional Reserves:The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the designation of approximately 588 acres from the matrix land allocation to the LSR land allocation in Sections 7, 18, and 19, T. 32 S., R. 2 W., W. M., Oregon; and Sections 13 and 24, T. 32 S., R. 3 W., W. M., Oregon. This change in land allocation is proposed to partially mitigate the potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector pipeline project on LSR 223 on the Umpqua National Forest. This amendment would change future management direction for the lands reallocated from matrix to LSR.

Amendment of the Rogue River National Forest LRMP

RRNF-1, Amendment to Provide for Energy Transmission:The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to establish a Forest Plan objective that states: “While considering other multiple use values, the Forest shall facilitate and make provision for energy transmission via the Pacific Connector consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Natural Gas Act, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the National Forest Management Act.”

RRNF-2, Site-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives on the Big Elk Road:The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the Visual Quality Objective (VQO) where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Big Elk Road at about pipeline MP 161.4 in Section 16, T. 37 S., R. 4 E., W. M., Oregon, from Foreground Retention (Management Strategy 6, LRMP page 4-72) to Foreground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 7, LRMP page 4-86) and allow 10-15 years for amended visual quality objectives to be attained. The existing Standards and Guidelines for VQO in Foreground Retention where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Big Elk Road require that VQOs be met within 1 year of completion of the project and that management activities not be visually evident. This amendment would apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in the vicinity of Big Elk Road and would not change future management direction for any other project.

RRNF-3, Site-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives on the Pacific Crest Trail:The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the VQO where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Pacific Crest Trail at about pipeline MP 168 in Section 32, T. 37 S., R. 5 E., W. M., Oregon, from Foreground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 7, LRMP page 4-86) to Modification (USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 478) and to allow 15-20 years for amended VQOs to be attained. The existing Standards and Guidelines for VQOs in Foreground Partial Retention in the area where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Pacific Crest Trail require that visual mitigation measures meet the stated VQO within 3 years of the completion of the project and that management activities be visually subordinate to the landscape. This amendment would apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in the vicinity of the Pacific Crest Trail and would not change future management direction for any other project.

RRNF-4, Site-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives Adjacent to Highway 140:The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15 years to meet the VQO of Middleground Partial Retention between Pacific Connector pipeline MPs 156.3 to 156.8 and 157.2 to 157.5 in Sections 11 and 12, T. 37 S., R. 3 E., W. M., Oregon. Standards and Guidelines for Middleground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 9, LRMP Page 4-112) require that VQOs for a given location be achieved within 3 years of completion of the project. Approximately 0.8 miles or 9 acres of the Pacific Connector right-of-way in the Middleground Partial Retention VQO visible at distances of 0.75 to 5 miles from State Highway 140 would be affected by this amendment. This amendment would apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in Sections 11 and 12, T .37 S., R. 3 E., W. M., Oregon, and would not change future management direction for any other project.

RRNF-5, Site-Specific Amendment to Allow Utility Transmission Corridors in Management Strategy 26, Restricted Riparian Areas:The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow the Pacific Connector right-of-way to cross the Restricted Riparian land allocation. This would potentially affect approximately 2.5 acres of the Restricted Riparian Management Strategy at one perennial stream crossing on the South Fork of Little Butte Creek at about pipeline MP162.45 in Section 15, T. 37 S., R. 4 E., W. M., Oregon. Standards and Guidelines for the Restricted Riparian land allocation prescribe locating transmission corridors outside of this land allocation (Management Strategy 26, LRMP page 4-308,). This amendment would apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

RRNF-6, Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions Within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in All Management Areas:The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive limitations on areas affected by detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way in all affected Management Strategies. Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil impacts in affected Management Strategies require that no more than 10 percent of an activity area should be compacted, puddled, or displaced upon completion of project (not including permanent roads or landings). No more than 20 percent of the area should be displaced or compacted under circumstances resulting from previous management practices including roads and landings. Permanent recreation facilities or other permanent facilities are exempt (RRNF LRMP 4-41, 4-83, 4-97, 4-123, 4-177, 4-307). This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction for at any other location.

RRNF-7, Reallocation of Matrix Lands to Late Successional Reserves:The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the designation of approximately 512 acres from the matrix land allocation to the LSR land allocation in Section 32, T. 36 S., R. 4 E., W. M., Oregon. This change in land allocation is proposed to partially mitigate the potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector pipeline project on LSR 227 on the Rogue River National Forest. This amendment would change future management direction for the lands reallocated from Matrix to LSR.

Amendment of the Winema National Forest LRMP

WNF-1, Site-Specific Amendment To Allow Utility Corridors in Management Area 3:The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 3 (MA-3) (LRMP page 4-103-4, Lands) to allow the 95-foot-wide Pacific Connector pipeline corridor in MA-3 from the Forest Boundary in Section 32, T. 37 S., R. 5 E., W. M., Oregon, to the Clover Creek Road corridor in Section 4, T. 38 S., R. 5 E., W. M., Oregon. Standards and Guidelines for MA-3 state that the area is currently an avoidance area for new utility corridors. This proposed new utility corridor is approximately 1.5 miles long and occupies approximately 17 acres. This is a site-specific amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

WNF-2, Site-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives on the Dead Indian Memorial Highway:The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15 years to achieve the VQO of Foreground Retention where the Pacific Connector right-of-way crosses the Dead Indian Memorial Highway at approximately pipeline MP 168.8 in Section 33, T. 37 S., R. 5 E., W. M., Oregon. Standards and Guidelines for Scenic Management, Foreground Retention (LRMP 4-103, MA 3A, Foreground Retention) requires VQOs for a given location be achieved within 1 year of completion of the project. The Forest Service proposes to allow 10-15 years to meet the specified VQO at this location. This is a site-specific amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in the vicinity of the Dead Indian Memorial Highway and would not change future management direction for any other project.

WNF-3, Site-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives Adjacent to the Clover Creek Road:The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15 years to meet the VQO for Scenic Management, Foreground Partial Retention, where the Pacific Connector right-of-way is adjacent to the Clover Creek Road from approximately pipeline MP 170 to 175 in Sections 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12, T. 38 S., R. 5 E., and Sections 7 and 18, T. 38 S., R. 6 E., W. M., Oregon. This change would potentially affect approximately 50 acres. Standards and Guidelines for Foreground Partial Retention (LRMP, page 4-107, MA 3B) require that VQOs be met within 3 years of completion of a project. This is a site-specific amendment that would apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in the vicinity of Clover Creek road and would not change future management direction for any other project.

WNF-4, Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in All Management Areas:The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive restrictions on detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way in all affected management areas. Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil impacts in all affected management areas require that no more than 20 percent of the activity area be detrimentally compacted, puddled, or displaced upon completion of a project (LRMP page 4-73, 12-5). This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

WNF-5, Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental Soil Conditions within the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way in Management Area 8:The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive restrictions on detrimental soil conditions from displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector right-of-way within the Management Area 8, Riparian Area (MA-8). This change would potentially affect approximately 0.5 mile or an estimated 9.6 acres of MA-8. Standards and Guidelines for Soil and Water, MA-8 require that not more than 10 percent of the total riparian zone in an activity area be in a detrimental soil condition upon the completion of a project (LRMP page 4-137, 2). This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector right-of-way and would not change future management direction at any other location.

Lead Agency

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the lead agency for preparation of an EIS for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline.

Responsible Officials

The Secretary of the Interior has delegated authority to the BLM to potentially grant a right-of-way in response to Pacific Connector's application for natural gas transmission on Federal lands under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The Responsible Official for the proposed amendments of the BLM RMPs and potential issuance of the right-of-way grant is the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director. The Responsible Official for the proposed amendment of Forest Service LRMPs is the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest. In accordance with 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2), the Deciding Official for the Forest Service has elected to use the 1982 planning rule procedures to amend Forest Service LRMPs as provided in the transition procedures of the 2000 planning rule.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

If the BLM adopts the new FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector pipeline project (in Docket No. PF12-17-000), the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director will make the following decisions and determinations:

• Determine whether to amend the RMPs for the BLM Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District as proposed or as described in an alternative to the Proposed Action; and

• Respond to the Pacific Connector application with concurrence of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service by issuing a right-of-way grant, granting the right-of-way with conditions, or denying the application.

If the Forest Service adopts the new FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector pipeline project (in Docket No. PF12-17-000), the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest will make the following decisions and determinations:

• Decide whether to amend the LRMPs of the Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National Forests as proposed or as described in an alternative; and

• Determine the significance of the proposed amendments or alternatives in accordance with national forest planning regulation 36 CFR 219.10(f) (1982 procedures) using criteria in Forest Service Manual 1926.5.

Scoping Process:The BLM and the Forest Service seek public input on issues and planning criteria related to issuance of the Right-of-Way Grant. The BLM and the Forest Service seek public input on issues and planning criteria related to amendment of their district and forest land management plans related to the Pacific Connector pipeline project. All comments received related to actions of the BLM and the Forest Service will be considered in the preparation of land management plan amendments and issuance of a right-of-way grant for the Project.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Your comments should focus on the potential changes in the goods and services that are provided by affected BLM districts and National Forests, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen any adverse changes in the goods and services produced. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.

Currently Identified Issues Specific to Proposed BLM and Forest Service Land Management Plan Amendments

The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the plan amendment process. Preliminary issues for the plan amendments have been identified by BLM and Forest Service personnel, Federal, State, and local agencies, and other stakeholders. The issues include:

• Effects of proposed amendments on Survey and Manage species and their habitat;

• Effects of proposed amendments on habitat in Known Owl Activity Centers, and

• Effects of the proposed amendments on Late Successional Reserves.

Preliminary BLM and Forest Service planning criteria include:

• Evaluation of significance of proposed amendments to Forest Service LRMPs in the context of LRMP goals and objectives. Whether a plan amendment is significant is guided by several factors, including the timing and duration of the proposed change, the location and size of the project, and how the proposed change could alter multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.

• Likelihood of persistence of affected Survey and Manage species within the range of the northern spotted owl.

• Amount and quality of marbled murrelet habitat affected by construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline project.

• Amount and quality of habitat in Known Owl Activity Centers affected by construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline project.

• Functionality of LSRs.

• Impacts on Connectivity and Diversity Blocks on BLM lands.

Administrative Review of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Decisions To Amend Land Management Plans and Appeal of BLM Response to Right-of-Way Grant Application

Decisions by the BLM and the Forest Service to amend land management plans are subject to administrative review. In accordance with 36 CFR 219.59, the Forest Service has elected to use the administrative review procedures (otherwise known as protest procedures) of the BLM. Administrative objections to Forest Service land management plan amendment decisions and protests of BLM land management plan amendment decisions may be filed under the provisions of 43 CFR 1610.5-2. The BLM's decision on the application for a right-of-way grant may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR part 4.

The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to object to the subsequent decision.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States office in Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in theFederal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The survey was requested by the Eastern States Jackson Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management.

The lands surveyed are:

Tallahassee Meridian, FloridaT. 16 and 17 S., R. 34 E.

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the South Boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the surveys of a tract of land for the United States Coast Guard, and a tract of land for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in Section 32, and a tract of land for Volusia Country, in Sections 32 and 33, in Townships 16 and 17 South, Range 34 East, in the State of Florida, and was accepted August 24, 2012.

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information.

If BLM receives a protest against the survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.

We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 17, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Motorola Mobility LLC of Libertyville, Illinois; Motorola Mobility Ireland of Bermuda; and Motorola Mobility International Limited of Bermuda. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on September 6, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,883,580 (“the '580 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 5,922,047 (“the '047 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,425,002 (“the '002 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,493,673 (“the '673 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,983,370 (“the '370 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,007,064 (“the '064 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,383,983 (“the '983 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

ADDRESSES:

The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server athttp://www.usitc.gov.The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

Authority:

The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).

Scope of Investigation:Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on September 14, 2012,ordered that—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, and 15 of the '580 patent; claims 17 and 18 of the '047 patent; claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 of the '002 patent; claims 1, 9-11, and 50 of the '673 patent; claims 50-52 and 54 of the '370 patent; claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-13 of the '064 patent; and claims 1-4, 9, 12-14, 25-26, 31, 33-35, 37, 39, and 40 of the '983 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may bedeemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against certain video game systems and wireless controllers and components thereof, imported by respondent Nintendo Co., Ltd., of Kyoto, Japan and Nintendo America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington (collectively, “Nintendo”).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jia Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov,and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov.Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:

unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.

19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1).

The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on August 31, 2012. Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;

(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) Explain how the limited exclusion order would impact consumers in the United States.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 10, 2012.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-786”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (SeeHandbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.See19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 17, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Hitachi Metals, Ltd. of Japan and Hitachi Metals North Carolina, Ltd. of China Grove, North Carolina. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on September 5, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain sintered rare earth magnets, methods of making same and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,461,565 (“the `565 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,491,765 (“the `765 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,527,874 (“the `874 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,537,385 (“the `385 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

ADDRESSES:

The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server athttp://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

Authority:

The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).

Scope of Investigation:Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on September 14, 2012,Ordered That—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain sintered rare earth magnets, methods of making same and products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1-11 of the `565 patent; claims 1-4 and 11-16 of the `765 patent; claims 1-7 of the `874 patent; and claims 1-3 and 5-10 of the `385 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 17, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of BriarTek IP, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia. A supplement to the complaint was filed on September 6, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain two-way global satellite communication devices, system and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 (“the `380 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

ADDRESSES:

The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server athttp://www.usitc.gov.The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commssion's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

Authority:

The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2012).

Scope of Investigation:Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on September 14, 2012,ordered that—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain two-way global satellite communication devices, system and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 5, 10-12, and 34 of the `380 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors, 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a) The complainant is:

BriarTek IP, Inc.,3129 Mount Vernon Avenue,Alexandria, VA 22305.

(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may bedeemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitledCertain Devices with Secure Communications Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same,DN 2913 the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov,and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov.Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of VirnetX, Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation on September 14, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices with secure communications capabilities, components thereof, and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondent Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA.

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in theFederal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2913”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (SeeHandbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.See19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) are hosting two workshops in conjunction with the 119th Annual IACP Conference in San Diego CA. The focus of the workshops is the development of NIJ performance standards for Interview Room Recording Systems and License Plate Readers used by criminal justice agencies. Sessions are intended to inform manufacturers, test laboratories, certification bodies, and other interested parties of these standards development efforts. These workshops are being held specifically to discuss recent progress made toward the standards and to receive input, comments, and recommendations.

Space is limited at each workshop, and as a result, only 50 participants will be allowed to register for each session. We request that each organization limit their representatives to no more than two per organization. Exceptions to this limit may occur, should space allow. Participants planning to attend are responsible for their own travel arrangements.

Please access the following Web page to register for the Interview Room Video Systems workshop:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2012_Interview_RM_wkshp.

Please access the following Web page to register for the License Plate Reader workshop:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2012_ALPR_wkshp.

DATES:

Both workshops will be held on Saturday, September 29, 2012. The Interview Room Recording System Standard session will take place from 10 to 11 a.m. The License Plate Reader Standard session will take place from 11 a.m. to noon.

The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored Information Collection Request (ICR) titled, “Claims and Payment Activities,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

DATES:

Submit comments on or before October 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,on the day following publication of this notice or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or sending an email toDOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.

Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email atDOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.

Authority:

44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Form ETA-5159 provides important program information on claims taking and benefit payment activities under Federal and State unemployment insurance laws. These data are needed for budget preparation and control, program planning and evaluation, personnel assignment, actuarial and program research, and for accounting to Congress and the public. This collection is authorized under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 503(a)(6) and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96 section 2165(a)(3).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.See5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1205-0010. The current approval is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2012; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in theFederal Registeron June 22, 2012 (77 FR 37717).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in theADDRESSESsection within 30 days of publication of this notice in theFederal Register.In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1205-0010. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of September 3, 2012 through September 7, 2012.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.

I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and

(3) One of the following must be satisfied:

(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;

(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;

(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;

(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and

(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or

II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) One of the following must be satisfied:

(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;

(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and

(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and

(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) Either—

(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.

(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—

(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);

(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or

(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—

(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in theFederal Registerunder section 202(f)(3); or

(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in theFederal Register; and

(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—

(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or

(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).

Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.

In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.

The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.

After notice of the petitions was published in theFederal Registerand on the Department's Web site, as required by Section 221 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2271), the Department initiated investigations of these petitions.

The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.

I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of September 3, 2012 through September 7, 2012. These determinations are available on the Department's Web sitetradeact/taa/taa search form.cfmunder the searchable listing of determinations or by calling the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance toll free at 888-365-6822.

Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.

The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 1, 2012.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than October 1, 2012.

The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2012.Elliott S. Kushner,Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.Appendix[17 TAA petitions instituted between 9/4/12 and 9/7/12]TA-WSubject firm (petitioners)LocationDate of